> No, the question is, in a sufficiently complex system, can or should you boil everything down to sentence-sized absolutes?
That's a question, but it isn't particularly relevant as no one claimed that everything can be boiled down to sentence-sized absolutes.
> You agree with this, unless
Not so fast. The military isn't an example of a regulated market.
Net neutrality is an interesting example for you to bring up. Last-mile bandwidth providers have a govt-granted monopoly. Ford doesn't tell me what I can do with trucks that I buy from it.
> Don't turn your brain off just because it's comfortable -- examine situations with a fresh mind. Follow the incentives -- market failure is a real phenomenon.
Patronize much?
The existence of a problem does not imply that the existence of a solution with desirable properties.
To be more specific - the existence of market failure does not imply the existence of solutions to said failure that are better than said failure.
If you want to argue for regulation, you need more than "market failure". You need to show that regulation costs less. Since your examples of the need for regulation have been caused by regulation....
Note that the success of regulation in one area tells us nothing about whether regulation will succeed in another.
And then there's the small problem that we don't have ideal regulators, we have US regulators. Surely their record is relevant....
That's a question, but it isn't particularly relevant as no one claimed that everything can be boiled down to sentence-sized absolutes.
> You agree with this, unless
Not so fast. The military isn't an example of a regulated market.
Net neutrality is an interesting example for you to bring up. Last-mile bandwidth providers have a govt-granted monopoly. Ford doesn't tell me what I can do with trucks that I buy from it.
> Don't turn your brain off just because it's comfortable -- examine situations with a fresh mind. Follow the incentives -- market failure is a real phenomenon.
Patronize much?
The existence of a problem does not imply that the existence of a solution with desirable properties.
To be more specific - the existence of market failure does not imply the existence of solutions to said failure that are better than said failure.
If you want to argue for regulation, you need more than "market failure". You need to show that regulation costs less. Since your examples of the need for regulation have been caused by regulation....
Note that the success of regulation in one area tells us nothing about whether regulation will succeed in another.
And then there's the small problem that we don't have ideal regulators, we have US regulators. Surely their record is relevant....