RSS Feed

a playground of art, photos, videos, writing, music, life

You are here

Random Quote

Every writer 'creates' his own precursors. His work modifies our conception of the past, as it will modify the future.
-- Jorge Luis Borges

Blog - Blog Archive by Month - Blog Archive by Tag - Search Blog and Comments

<-- Go to Previous Page

The Myth of Regulation

The purpose of government regulation is to provide standardization and stability, and to protect the consumer and businesses alike from unfair business practices.

In general, it's to help.

From Wikipedia:

Efficient regulations are defined as those where the total benefits to some people exceed the total costs to others.
In short, a net positive.

When the sum effect of regulation is to excessively increase the cost to the business and to the consumer, and destabilizes the free market, government is no longer an agent for help, but works to erode business and reduce jobs.

And at that point, government must be limited by its citizens, or there won't be any income to tax as our expenditures outrun our revenue.

America can regulate itself out of existence, and I'd say we're about at that point.

Regulation can be a mechanism for growth - if growth is the goal - but clearly, nothing being suggested today in Washington promotes the growth of anything but more government. That impulse by our current crop of politicians is the only thing that needs regulation.

by Brett Rogers, 12/8/2009 12:03:07 AM


"People who create things nowadays can expect to be prosecuted by highly moralistic people who are incapable of creating anything. There is no way to measure the chilling effect on innovation that results from the threats of taxation, regulation and prosecution against anything that succeeds. We'll never know how many ideas our government has aborted in the name protecting us." Joseph Sobran, commenting on U.S. vs Microsoft

Posted by Casey Head (, 12/8/2009 9:56:57 AM

Thus speaks the voice of the 19th century tug of history, "anything goes."

We tried that, but the disregard for people and the environment in the pursuit of wealth led us to where we are. Perhaps I overgeneralize, but I'm not alone in doing so.

Do you think our conception of the profit motive has evolved to the point where we objectively perceive the multiple impacts of our economic endeavors on our fellow human beings and our planet, thus attaining a sustainable state of self-control abd reducing the need for gevernment regulation? Or is it the case that too many among us still adhere to violent and vulgar self-interested behaviors reflected in the cry, "Drill baby, drill?"

Alas, "If men were angels..."

Posted by Mean Spirited Liberal, 12/11/2009 12:20:52 PM

I hate to be this person, because it's completely beside the point...but are you familiar with spell check?

A quick proof read takes only a few moments. Then at least your hebephrenic diatribes would have the cursory appearance of legitimacy.

At least until people actually saw the content.

Posted by Casey Head (, 12/11/2009 1:29:52 PM

Mr. HEAD!! What a joy to address your sorry arse! And how curious that when you look in the mirror it cracks!

Behold, sir, the product of libertarian "whole language" educational philossoposoposyphy!

Your condemnation is ironic, wholly unwarranted, and quite unwelcome--but never the less entertaining! And consistent with the approach embraced by your kind, I too shall do entirely as I please!

Freed from all rules, bound by no coventions whatsoever, and wholly untrammeled, I am at liberty to do anything! A child of nature, I owe NO allegiance or bear any responsibility to civilization or society. I imbibe the fresh air of liberty and my passion soars! Suddenly aloft, above it all, I realize that it's ALL about ME!!! So screw you, sir!


The larger issue is that, once again, you go to page one in your playbook (distract) rather than address the legitimate point proffered in my well reasoned and highly cogent respose to the tripe that pollutes this obscure and depressing little excuse for a "blog." FFS.

Once again, Sir HEAD, your trivial retort illuminates your pathetic intellect and reveals the shallowness of your ideology. You are weak and so, so small.

In fact, people such as you should be required to pay a poll tax.

Posted by Mean Spirited Liberal, 12/11/2009 9:08:51 PM

A poll tax?

Why MSL, a poll tax would be a regressive tax acting only
to keep historically disadvantaged minorities from exercising
their electoral obligation.

The very notion that you suggest bringing it back, tells
tells me that you are a vile racist.

Or really full of shit...possibly both.

Posted by casey head (, 12/12/2009 7:05:21 PM

Add Your Comment:
Name (required):
Web Site:
Remember Me:   
Content: (4000 chars remaining)
To prevent spammers from commenting, please give a one-word answer to the following trivia question:

According to the poem, roses are red, and violets are what color?