- Jun 25, 2010
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
You're right, some people consider a basic set of laws not to be regulation, such as enforcing contracts, no fraud, etc. but then consider anything on top of that done by the government to be regulation. I do see what you're saying. But the thing is to consider that the first set of laws are beneficial for the market, but the second set called regulation are not, is not consistent. Either they both should be beneficial or they both should be detrimental to the market. I believe that they both are beneficial to the market. In previous posts I outlined how a market with laws but without regulation is not good because of monopolies and price fixing, so that's why we need regulation.Good insight. Good insight. Now, here is something that people might misconstrue about my position for an unregulated, free market, and most of this stems from how I use the term regulation. By regulation, I mean an unnecessary law made by the government to benefit the people, when they are in the position of the buyer, arbitrarily. For example, laws against price gauging are a regulation, but I don't consider laws against fraud a regulation, because that's just a necessary law in order to ensure the integrity of the transaction between two people. A contract is only valid, after all, if both parties have full knowledge of what they consent; therefore, laws against fraud should be enforced in all cases. In a sense, I support regulations that a free market imposes by its very nature, and that includes laws against fraud, because, for a free market to work, it requires the facts to be correct and not falsified.
"And also false advertising, the consumer might not know or be able to influence the seller if he lies or does something like that until its too late."
Now, that issue would only be the case, if the transaction would endanger the life of the buyer or seller. If it doesn't, then it would never be too late to garner reparations for fraud through the legal system.