[dragonwriter]

> Enforcement of property or contract laws != regulation

Property and contract laws are compulsory rules backed by government force and, therefore, regulation in every meaningful sense.

They may be desirable regulation (even assuming a value system where regulation, but for certain special exceptional cases, is undesirable), but calling them "not regulation" is just an exercise in creatively redefining terms to prevent communication.

[dmix]

Indeed - backed by court systems.

Those are basic legal regulations or established charter rights. Not economic regulation as the original commenter implied and this entire thread is debating.

[dragonwriter]

> Those are basic legal regulations or established charter rights. Not economic regulation as the original commenter implied and this entire thread is debating.

This distinction is artificial: there is no difference between defining the scope of property rights and enforcing rights within those boundaries, on the one hand, and generalized economic regulation, on the other: they are different words for the same thing. All economic regulation is part of defining the scope of property rights, and all definitions of the scope of property rights regulate the economy.

[dmix]

My usage of "economic regulation" in the context of this thread is pretty obvious. I'm not attempting to win a war of pedanticism with you over the definition of property rights.

The well accepted meaning of economic regulation is the use of regulation to compensate for market failures or centrally-planning economies (such as controlling money supply, subsidies, tax-breaks, import/export tariffs etc).

This is very different from the enforcement and defence of basic property/contract rights in courts as I was implying.

[dragonwriter]

> The well accepted meaning of economic regulation is the use of regulation to compensate for market failures or centrally-planning economies (such as controlling money supply, subsidies, tax-breaks, import/export tariffs etc).

No, that's not the "well accepted definition of economic regulation". Those are two well-known, opposing philosophies of economy regulation.

But, even so, pretty central to both styles is how property rights are defined and enforced, which tends to be radically different between the "compensate for market failures" approach and the "centrally-planning economies" approach, illustrating, again, that you cannot divide "economic regulation" from "defining and enforcing property rights", even when you limit "economic regulation" to being either "compensate for market failures" or "centrally-planning economies".

[rayiner]

But you see, the arbitrary set of rights he picks are "rights" while other ones are "regulations." And its better for him to pick than to do something stupid like having a democratically-elected body pick.