Hence my conflicted feelings about the libertarian party.
Paul is not in the libertarian party. He rejected it after the '88 presidential run. That party is slowly being co-opted by the right. Unfortunately.
A completely unregulated market would allow insider trading. Or do the stock traders not benefit from laissez faire?
Why wouldn't the exchanges, brokers, dealers and traders regulate the market? Do you not regulate your own stuff, or do you allow the government to regulate your spending, your investing, your business deals etc?
Btw, I don't want to come across as confrontational, which I have a habit of doing because I'm really passionate about this topic. But I am trying to aggressively head off some assumptions that are generally held and maybe provoke people to think them over again. So no hard feelings if I come across the wrong way.
But why would the banks do that and risk losing multi billion dollar clients?
Because there would be market demand for secure investments. Banks sell products. They sell to the low end, and the high end. Believe me, you can already aggressively speculate with these hyper hedge funds that are super-leveraged. Or you can make more conservative investments.
If you're a multi-billion dollar client, why would you invest with a bank or stock that doesn't follow audit procedures? The only reason people do it now, is that they *ASSUME* the SEC et al are on top of it, when in reality, they are the ones being paid to look the other way, because the government has no liability if the service they provide fails. Just ask the people from pre-Katrina New Orleans.
The reason corporations lobby the gov't is for abilities that they don't have that will benefit them. So if that was allowed by default, it would stand to reason that they would have all these benefits.
No, corporations now lobby for negative rights. They play the game and keep us (you and me) thinking that this regulation is really slowing down the big boys, the corporate monsters. But do we really believe that they are any weaker now than they were 10 or 20 years ago? Of course not. that's where reality intersects with ideology, and ideology fails the test.
Unless the big supplier negotiates 100% exclusive contracts with the companies yours relies on. Then you have to outbid or die.
Or unless they buy out the entire supply of raw_material_x to create a false shortage so you can't compete.
or any number of situations.
Then if you are smart, you don't compete against someone who can outbid you. If your theory is that big companies should have to compete like small ones, then that's a form of corporate socialism. If you ported that to the rank and file citizens, it would be an argument against people who make a lot of money being able to outbid the poor guy for an expensive watch or car. If I make a lot of money, I expect to be able to outbid the middle class when purchasing from a limited supply of yachts. And I expect to be able to afford to buy 100 loaves of bread. Or raw material X.
The reason why speculators buying up a supply doesn't work, is because you have a limited window to sell when the demand is highest and supply lowest. Demand has a ceiling, and supply has a floor. The longer supply is suppressed, the greater chance that demand will fall (people will look for alternative goods). This is the basis of Say's Law.
Cell phones and computers are unregulated? You have not heard of the FCC, or FTC have you? and computers are regulated. They just happen to be regulated by a smaller, but more dangerous group(the FBI/CIA/other acronyms/alphabet club). Less regulation, but if you get "regulated" there's a much higher danger.
I think you know what I mean. The production environment is not regulated. There are not high tariffs on their import. The design specs, and features are not highly regulated. Phones are designed, produced and off the market in under 6 months. If they had to wait for regulatory approval, people would still be talking on these,
It's not a libertarian experiment. Many states are taxed. Many industries are regulated. Search for "rizler pharmacy" (w/o quotes) and see how unregulated it is.
That's offline regulation. Not online, it just trickles through. Imagine if all of your sites were regulated. Every script you write for your BH. Imagine if every one of your leads had to be documented, and checked against a DB, with reports submitted to the government showing your activity.
Imagine if your host had to submit details on you, your IP, your payments, your use of bandwidth etc. Costs would go up. What if hosts had to be licensed by the government? Would we have more or less?
I can feel the force within you. It is strong. BHers are anti-state, anti-system by nature.
