Post 1960's the only non-regulated market in the US was/is software. As-is and no warranty or fit-for-purpose is the standard software license and it held up in the courts and public opinion till the present day. Have broken parts in programs was just accepted. Progress in the physical world withered as people that liked to do things were drawn to computers because you could just do things and even sell them to others with no liability. Buyer beware but lots of options. It would be great (maybe?) if real objects could have similar treatment again.
The software market is subject to many regulations: GDPR, CCPA, CRA, GLBA, HIPAA, FISMA, CISA, DORA, CPRA and PCI DSS -- just to name a few of the top of my head.
Just bc you are ignorant of something, does not mean that thing does not exist.
I don't think most people feel software's exemption from liability and fraud is a positive thing. Nobody likes to be swindled and there is a strong case to be made that truth in advertising laws should exist and the current ones vastly strengthened. Free market defenses generally assume not just a lack of fraud and access to a neutral arbitrator, but also one party isn't willfully attempting to harm the other party such as selling bleach as baby formula while be exempt from liability beyond reputational costs.
Software is 100% practice in the normative, not highly technical legalistic, use of the word fraud. If I buy software that claims X and it doesn't deliver on X, that is fraud in all but a lawyer's view. But because we let fraud masquerade as advertising along with allowing small print to trump truth in advertising, they get away with it. When was the last time you think Google lost getting sued over failing to provide the privacy they promised? McAfee is still in business never mind their antivirus product hasn't stopped people from getting computer virus, well ever. Just bought that promised me interested game play (it wasn't) and forty hours (it took thirty-two), want to bet I'd lose that fraud lawsuit? Back in my professional days I bought millions of dollars of taxpayer funded software and I'd say upward of 95% of it didn't deliver on anything they claimed.
Sure there is no statute that explicitly exempts software from fraud laws but what matters is practice and in practice they are except in all but the most egregious situations and even then, only when the buyer has deep pockets and the seller was naive.
The problem with suing Google and other Big Tech for fraud is that the government won't allow it.
Every single social media platform I am aware of implies as strongly as possible that they provide connectivity for family, friends, and businesses. Arbitrarily canceling someone's account or deleting posts, with no meaningful appeal or warning, violates that implied connectivity. Businesses have lost accounts after years of building up an online presence, leaving their customers with one less way of contacting them. The obvious solution is to let social media customers sue Big Tech for violating their implied promises of connectivity, their own terms of services.
But they can't. Our legal system is far too expensive, slow, and unpredictable. When someone's account is canceled for violating vague terms of service, that dispute ought to be settled within days, not years. In practice, like you say, it takes deep pockets to win anything, and years to boot, with the outcome a huge crapshoot. In practice, the big victims aren't victimized because Big Tech knows they've got the resources and patience to do battle.
This isn't a matter which only applies to software. It applies to breakfast cereals and a whole lot more. But at its root is government, as always.
This is entirely true. Government creates and controls the legal system and has zero incentive to let individuals take away the crony corruption that individual, cheap, and quick prosecution would curtail. Why does government get to decide who you can have represent you in a courtroom? Why does government get to artificially limit how many lawyers and judges there are, which makes legal cases take years?
Government does it because politicians and bureaucrats hate individuals taking charge of themselves. The last thing any bureaucrat or politician wants is to solve the problems that keep them employed.
While I'm not an economist (nor a leftist), I don't fully understand the relevance of the challenge to your interlocutor's point, as it focuses on the question "which markets should be regulated [at all]?" rather than the question "how much should we regulate each market?" I would expect your typical mainstream economist to reply that there are some markets for which they wish *very little* regulation, and this seems sufficient to defend his point.
The claim was made that someone "start[ed] with the presumption that a totally free market is optimal.”. Now obviously since he's not an anarcho-capitalist that presumption must in this mind sometimes be defeated by the particulars of an industry. So for instance perhaps fishing needs to be regulated to preserve fish stocks. But if it turns out that every industry should be regulated then the presumption is so weak as to be nonexistent.
i doubt that what the lefty economist has in mind by "totally free market" is "the total absence of a state"; states are not the only entities that can deprive people of freedom. most probably they're thinking about the concept of perfect competition in microeconomics. the "bite" of the presumption of perfect competition is that you don't just sit down and think "gee it sure would be nice if everyone made $50/hr"; regulation is justified by correcting deviations from perfect competition. many of these deviations are industry-independent
for instance, in most industries, it's possible to refuse to pay your employees the wages you agreed to; in most industries, it's possible to deliver a fake product; in many industries, it's possible to violate your neighbors' property rights (e.g., by pollution). government regulations that prevent these sorts of behaviors clearly make the market less free from the absence-of-a-state perspective, but they potentially bring the market closer to the perfectly competitive ideal. and philosophically i think a society is more free when your contractual rights and property rights are protected, even if it requires the presence of a state.
"most probably they're thinking about the concept of perfect competition in microeconomics."
No, that's a theorectical concept designed to show under what conditions price competition would be complete. It's not actually something people want to happen.
I have a nit to pick. Institutions matter. Governments lower transaction costs for all players by defining weights and measures, certain practices that are considered fraudulent or child endangering in all markets, how contracts [including labor contracts] are to be written and enforced. Those regulations help markets function better, without targeting any particular industry, but do apply to almost everything. So I can't say there is an industry I want with absolute zero regulation.
But there are many markets I can say I don't want regulated beyond that. Lawn care, plumbing, and barbering; the vast majority of online services; clothing, books, and the vast majority of consumer goods that don't have screamingly blatant externalities.
Sounds like you aren’t nitpicking but rather confirming his argument to the letter. Also, you aren’t considering the net effect of regulation, only the positives. When you factor in the huge costs of regulatory compliance and the opportunity cost of banned activities, those could easily overwhelm any gains from regulation.
I don't think so, I think he is saying "broad regulation which applies to every industry equally should be exempt from the individual industry regulation discussion" and I think there is a case for that in some cases, for example as he said, contract enforcement, prohibitions on fraud, etc. I think there is a valid question whether Bryan meant "individual market regulation" OR is playing the gotcha game of "ah ha, but would about regulation that prevents chattel slavery". Your assumption of good faith (or not) on his question frames your answer.
I have a friend who owns a small restaurant who made a similar point. ‘Aren’t you grateful for all these food safety regulations that make sure that the food you eat from my place is safe?’ I said, ‘so, without these regulations, would you just negligently poison all your customers for as long as you could before it caught up with you?’ Of course, he said he wouldn’t. The point is, I think you are underrating the power of reputational enforcement (reviews and word of mouth) along with basic competition.
Honestly not sure about the flame-retardant clothing one. It came to mind because it was a plot point on a 1988 episode of Wiseguy I just recently rewatched.
IMO pragmatic libertarians should be trying to eliminate the 70%-80% of regulations that large majorities would agree are not necessary and even harmful, rather than going to the extreme of “all regulations are terrible”.
I had to mail order a Goretex tent from out of state back in the 1980s because my state said all tents needed to have flame retardant applied, and it would have ruined the Goretex.
Chief and officer uniforms in the Navy when I was in were polyester and melted something terrible in fires. Everyone knew it, the Navy didn't care, and civilians were able to buy polyester clothes.
Fire retardant personal clothes are an easy marketing advantage, if they are any advantage, and none of the government's business. What next, ban hat chin straps because a mugger might pull the hat off backwards and choke his victim? Ban belts because they slow down paramedics? Ban rings and shirt tails and cuffs because they can get caught in machinery and drag people in?
Midwifery. It has existed for centuries without government intervention. The only reason they have been regulated was to reduce the number of midwives for the benefit of the doctors who wanted the birthing business and other related medical procedures.
I am not a mainstream economist, although I used to be. I am an Austrian economist today and have been for 20 years.
But I am a mainline economist, as meant by Pete Boettke. I cannot think of any market that I want to regulate. I do want laws of justice --- rules of the game --- but all those in my best of all worlds will be what is known as "natural law."
I offer my opinion based on a decade of real experience working with federal regulators in USDA, FDA, and EPA as a professional consultant.
Genuine question: do you want any child labor laws? In particular laws regarding non-citizens.
Seems to me I do want a law banning underage prostitution in general, and human trafficking of children in particular. You would actually be against such a law? Or is your answer that you would “cheat” there and say you approve of a criminal statute in that case but no pt a regulation banning the child sex trade.
I want natural law, which says this, boiled down about as far as I've been able to boil it. "Do not compel another unjustly."
Compulsion is force, threat of force, or fraud. If you like, you can use the word "coerce," instead of compel.
We do need and do have a legal definition of the word "minor." I have no objection to such a definition, nor any other positive law, so long as the law making authority --- Congress in the USA --- pass such law with an 80% + 1 super majority, as I have written elsewhere. https://www.amazon.com/Morality-Capitalism-Dialogue-David-Kendall/dp/1503233243
I support all the law making anyone wants to propose, so long as the law can be passed with an 80%+1 vote of Congress. What is confusing?
I am confident that Congress will pass a law against child prostitution and trafficking children to another country for prostitution (without checking I'm guessing we already have such laws).
Every society has some definition of "minor" We compel minors all the time for their safety and welfare, do we not? Such compulsion is not unjust. But compelling an adult would be.
I do not support economic regulations in general. Regulations compel adults unjustly. Regulations are laws, too.
Positive laws that can be passed by 80% + 1 majority by both the House and Senate would be the will of "the people." I predict that only natural law and inconsequential positive laws could get passed, just as it should be, in my opinion.
This really is not the venue to dilate further. If you want to pursue these ideas, my little book is published on Substack Economics and Freedom, chapter by chapter.
Looking around the room, I wouldn't regulate bread (no vitamin D requirement), ginger ale, kitchen tables, chairs, coffee, couches, rugs, coats, shoes, for market-specific regulations. I'd want antitrust, though, for every market, and patents, and general legal rules like no-fraud, no-violence, keep-your-contracts, list ingredients, etc.
I have a teaching notes book on regulation that I should maybe finish someday. Comments, encourgement, or discouragement welcomed. It goes: why markets are good, when markets fail, government failure, government design, and then other topics.
That would be part of anti-fraud regulation. Bread is ordinariliy thought of as nonpoisonous. One light regulation would be "You may not sell poisonous bread unless it is labelled as poisonous", but I would go for "You may not sell poisonous bread" so people don't hve to pay attention.
Antitrust means, at minimum, not allowing sellers to make contracts (especially binding ones!) to set equally high prices if they form a big part of the market. That applies even to farmers-- I wouldnt let them form an association to all keep their prices high. Like anyting, it's a matter of practicality as to how broad one makes the law.
I would add most (all?) liberal professions (teachers, lawyers, physicians, etc) to those I saw here. But I think the question needs clarification. Every market can become cartelized, so anti-trust should apply at least to keep the market entry-free. Agriculture and liberal professions I see as the least capable of becoming cartelized, so it might not be needed.
The most basic antitrust law is one that prevents sellers from making binding contracts with each other to keep prices high. That' from the common law I think; it goes back to the 1800s and before,
Nothing comes to my mind, but anti-trust agencies often do argue about a merge posing threats to competition, so I don't understand what you mean by "it has never done". Is there a market immune to cartelization? Even lots of firms can tacitly collude with "I cover any price" propaganda.
"so anti-trust should apply at least to keep the market entry-free. "
When did anti-trust ever keep the market entry free? There were always barriers to entry to overcome, of if there weren't it wasn't because of anti-trust legislation.
"Is there a market immune to cartelization?"
Yes, unless you think you can control the price of corn at the farm gate.
Even if every market has barriers to entry, anti-trust can keep them more open than without anti-trust. This is an empirical claim and I don't know much about it. Yes, I do think it's possible to control the price of corn at the farm gate. You just need to create a "corn producer association" with can indirectly keep other farmers informed of everyones' price (directly or not) so they can retaliate.
“Even if every market has barriers to entry, anti-trust can keep them more open than without anti-trust.”
Citation needed.
“Yes, I do think it's possible to control the price of corn at the farm gate. You just need to create a "corn producer association" with can indirectly keep other farmers informed of everyones' price (directly or not) so they can retaliate.”
Through the whole corn market, with literally thousands of producers?
Don't see why would I need a citation. In an entry model an anti-trust agency can enhance competition by stymying a merge between the incumbent and the challenger. If the challenger pays a fixed cost to entry the market, what changes? It doesn't need to be the whole corn market, though, need it? Often those associations have a political economy effect and can gate keep markets... I'll stop answering. Looks to me you're challenging my views without saying anything to defend yours. That's not an interesting exchange on my viewpoint.
Thank you for the nice question that got me thinking. I’d readily agree with the statement yet also I struggle to define any market that I wouldn’t want some kind of fair-dealing regulation at minimum.
If I could be allowed relatively generic anti-fraud-like/do-no-harm-like guidelines that are enforced with impactful fines / punishment that is tested and iterated, beyond that I’d be happy with every industry being free from regulation. It often feels like the regulations for various regulated industries are sold as a way to make the market more fair but often simply entrench established interests while often masking fraud / harm.
Thinking about this another way, I could see any service provided to people above a certain quantum of wealth being unregulated. If you can afford to defend yourself/buy the best advice/etc, why should the state bother?
But it’s an interesting thought to chew on. Thank you for the prompt!
How do you keep an unregulated market unregulated? As agents in the market become more powerful, without regulation, won't they start to tip the scales towards themselves?
Regulation is often at the behest of current large market participants for the purpose of restricting future competition.
Regulatory compliance is costly. Larger firms can better afford the cost, so it disadvantages smaller competitors and future startups.
Disallowing the regulation keeps the market more open to entry by future competitors.
In sum, it's through regulation that powerful market agents tip the scales toward themselves and become more powerful, and it's through a lack of regulation that they are kept less powerful, more perpetually threatened by competition, current or prospective.
Would "regulation" also include things which facilitate said market? What I'd probably want to do regardless of market are things like an "egregious lemon" penalty/buyback. Granted, one can and should wait until they're proven to be necessary.
A valid purpose of government is to establish social norms that discourages vigilantism. If the lack of regulation would invite individuals to "take the law into their own hands" then it reasons that regulation may be prudent.
The risk of regulatory oversight is that it invariably is used to stifle innovation and competition. How does society avoid this error? By regulating the regulators!
No. Society establishes social norms. Some might justify government enforcement of them, but that is entirely different from government establishing them.
Can we regulate the Federal, State, and, in some cases, Local Government's regulatory powers? or does that "market" not count as a market... I almost see it as one since private business tend to influence regulatory authorities towards rules that are selfishly one sided.
Child prostitution is not regulated. It is prohibited.
We prohibit it not to ensure competition or to ensure safety or protected the consumers of child prostitute's services - all that would be regulation - but because it is inherently harmful to the child. It is a form of slavery, and we prohibit slavery.
But I believe everything I wrote above, and I notice you refuse to engage on the other topics beyond sex with children.
We were not discussing pure criminal behavior, like theft, which is not in any way a market - the free exchange of goods and services.
We were discussing market transactions and where one draws the line in terms of regulation.
The point being that *some* regulation is good. Not much, but not zero. Which is what Chartopia claimed but I think not even he believes, let alone most of the rest of us.
I am sick and tired of such useless examples. Why not include throwing children off the Empire State or using them as moving targets on gun ranges, or cooking them for snacks?
“Why not include throwing children off the Empire State or using them as moving targets on gun ranges, or cooking them for snacks?”
Because your ridiculous examples are neither profitable nor common (let alone that there are criminal laws against direct violence against children or adults that all save a fraction of anarcho-capitalists don’t have an issue with).
The inconvenient truth is that the world is not actually as simple as you sometimes try to proclaim it is (or should be).
You might think child sex trafficking is a useless example, but most others do not.
Your examples are the typical “won’t anyone think of the children” and “if it saves one child” kind of nonsense that makes excuses for government. They do nothing to enlighten any discussion.
Post 1960's the only non-regulated market in the US was/is software. As-is and no warranty or fit-for-purpose is the standard software license and it held up in the courts and public opinion till the present day. Have broken parts in programs was just accepted. Progress in the physical world withered as people that liked to do things were drawn to computers because you could just do things and even sell them to others with no liability. Buyer beware but lots of options. It would be great (maybe?) if real objects could have similar treatment again.
The software market is subject to many regulations: GDPR, CCPA, CRA, GLBA, HIPAA, FISMA, CISA, DORA, CPRA and PCI DSS -- just to name a few of the top of my head.
Just bc you are ignorant of something, does not mean that thing does not exist.
I don't think most people feel software's exemption from liability and fraud is a positive thing. Nobody likes to be swindled and there is a strong case to be made that truth in advertising laws should exist and the current ones vastly strengthened. Free market defenses generally assume not just a lack of fraud and access to a neutral arbitrator, but also one party isn't willfully attempting to harm the other party such as selling bleach as baby formula while be exempt from liability beyond reputational costs.
Software is NOT exempted from fraud. Your assertion there is just false.
Software is 100% practice in the normative, not highly technical legalistic, use of the word fraud. If I buy software that claims X and it doesn't deliver on X, that is fraud in all but a lawyer's view. But because we let fraud masquerade as advertising along with allowing small print to trump truth in advertising, they get away with it. When was the last time you think Google lost getting sued over failing to provide the privacy they promised? McAfee is still in business never mind their antivirus product hasn't stopped people from getting computer virus, well ever. Just bought that promised me interested game play (it wasn't) and forty hours (it took thirty-two), want to bet I'd lose that fraud lawsuit? Back in my professional days I bought millions of dollars of taxpayer funded software and I'd say upward of 95% of it didn't deliver on anything they claimed.
Sure there is no statute that explicitly exempts software from fraud laws but what matters is practice and in practice they are except in all but the most egregious situations and even then, only when the buyer has deep pockets and the seller was naive.
The problem with suing Google and other Big Tech for fraud is that the government won't allow it.
Every single social media platform I am aware of implies as strongly as possible that they provide connectivity for family, friends, and businesses. Arbitrarily canceling someone's account or deleting posts, with no meaningful appeal or warning, violates that implied connectivity. Businesses have lost accounts after years of building up an online presence, leaving their customers with one less way of contacting them. The obvious solution is to let social media customers sue Big Tech for violating their implied promises of connectivity, their own terms of services.
But they can't. Our legal system is far too expensive, slow, and unpredictable. When someone's account is canceled for violating vague terms of service, that dispute ought to be settled within days, not years. In practice, like you say, it takes deep pockets to win anything, and years to boot, with the outcome a huge crapshoot. In practice, the big victims aren't victimized because Big Tech knows they've got the resources and patience to do battle.
This isn't a matter which only applies to software. It applies to breakfast cereals and a whole lot more. But at its root is government, as always.
“The problem with suing Google and other Big Tech for fraud is that the government won't allow it.”
This is just false. See response to Peter.
This is entirely true. Government creates and controls the legal system and has zero incentive to let individuals take away the crony corruption that individual, cheap, and quick prosecution would curtail. Why does government get to decide who you can have represent you in a courtroom? Why does government get to artificially limit how many lawyers and judges there are, which makes legal cases take years?
Government does it because politicians and bureaucrats hate individuals taking charge of themselves. The last thing any bureaucrat or politician wants is to solve the problems that keep them employed.
Fraud is indeed a legal term.
If you don’t like the software, don’t use the software.
To have the regulation be as you imply it should would raise the cost of software for everyone substantially.
If you want to argue the standard of proof in a civil court case against software companies should be lower, I’d be open to that argument.
“When was the last time you think Google lost getting sued over failing to provide the privacy they promised?”
December 2023.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6916411f-76d4-8005-82e0-b1592cebd648
Sorry, I don't use AI
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/class-action/google-violated-privacy-of-nearly-100-million-users-jury-finds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/05/09/google-lawsuit-texas-data-privacy/
And also:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/15/google-privacy-settlement-location-data/
While I'm not an economist (nor a leftist), I don't fully understand the relevance of the challenge to your interlocutor's point, as it focuses on the question "which markets should be regulated [at all]?" rather than the question "how much should we regulate each market?" I would expect your typical mainstream economist to reply that there are some markets for which they wish *very little* regulation, and this seems sufficient to defend his point.
The claim was made that someone "start[ed] with the presumption that a totally free market is optimal.”. Now obviously since he's not an anarcho-capitalist that presumption must in this mind sometimes be defeated by the particulars of an industry. So for instance perhaps fishing needs to be regulated to preserve fish stocks. But if it turns out that every industry should be regulated then the presumption is so weak as to be nonexistent.
i doubt that what the lefty economist has in mind by "totally free market" is "the total absence of a state"; states are not the only entities that can deprive people of freedom. most probably they're thinking about the concept of perfect competition in microeconomics. the "bite" of the presumption of perfect competition is that you don't just sit down and think "gee it sure would be nice if everyone made $50/hr"; regulation is justified by correcting deviations from perfect competition. many of these deviations are industry-independent
for instance, in most industries, it's possible to refuse to pay your employees the wages you agreed to; in most industries, it's possible to deliver a fake product; in many industries, it's possible to violate your neighbors' property rights (e.g., by pollution). government regulations that prevent these sorts of behaviors clearly make the market less free from the absence-of-a-state perspective, but they potentially bring the market closer to the perfectly competitive ideal. and philosophically i think a society is more free when your contractual rights and property rights are protected, even if it requires the presence of a state.
"most probably they're thinking about the concept of perfect competition in microeconomics."
No, that's a theorectical concept designed to show under what conditions price competition would be complete. It's not actually something people want to happen.
what do you mean by "it's not actually something people want to happen"? certainly everyone knows its an unrealistic ideal
I mean exactly what I said. It's not something people think would be good if it happened. It's not just that it's unrealistic, it's not desirable.
why do you believe this?
Fraud (not paying your workers) is not a market regulation point.
I suppose if you want to you can claim that enforcing contracts is a market regulation on labor, but really that is so not the point.
Because we classical liberals who want far less government and far less regulation surely do want the state to enforce contracts and sanction fraud.
The challenge was not about anarcho-capitalism. It was about regulation of specific markets. The plain meaning of the words.
what is the definition of "regulation" you are using
State restrictions on the free exchange of goods, services, labor between consenting people (usually adults).
Where enforcement of contracts and fraud is a legit state function.
it sounds like you're just drawing the "regulation line" at exactly the point where you think it's not a good idea for the state to do it?
I have a nit to pick. Institutions matter. Governments lower transaction costs for all players by defining weights and measures, certain practices that are considered fraudulent or child endangering in all markets, how contracts [including labor contracts] are to be written and enforced. Those regulations help markets function better, without targeting any particular industry, but do apply to almost everything. So I can't say there is an industry I want with absolute zero regulation.
But there are many markets I can say I don't want regulated beyond that. Lawn care, plumbing, and barbering; the vast majority of online services; clothing, books, and the vast majority of consumer goods that don't have screamingly blatant externalities.
Sounds like you aren’t nitpicking but rather confirming his argument to the letter. Also, you aren’t considering the net effect of regulation, only the positives. When you factor in the huge costs of regulatory compliance and the opportunity cost of banned activities, those could easily overwhelm any gains from regulation.
I don't think so, I think he is saying "broad regulation which applies to every industry equally should be exempt from the individual industry regulation discussion" and I think there is a case for that in some cases, for example as he said, contract enforcement, prohibitions on fraud, etc. I think there is a valid question whether Bryan meant "individual market regulation" OR is playing the gotcha game of "ah ha, but would about regulation that prevents chattel slavery". Your assumption of good faith (or not) on his question frames your answer.
Curious if in fact you do not want clothing to be flame-retardant, or even have disclosure if it is not.
It may well be that you do not, but at least food for thought.
I have a friend who owns a small restaurant who made a similar point. ‘Aren’t you grateful for all these food safety regulations that make sure that the food you eat from my place is safe?’ I said, ‘so, without these regulations, would you just negligently poison all your customers for as long as you could before it caught up with you?’ Of course, he said he wouldn’t. The point is, I think you are underrating the power of reputational enforcement (reviews and word of mouth) along with basic competition.
I agree that we have WAY too many regulations.
I’d get rid of something like 90%-95% of them.
There are a few I’m sure I’d keep.
Honestly not sure about the flame-retardant clothing one. It came to mind because it was a plot point on a 1988 episode of Wiseguy I just recently rewatched.
IMO pragmatic libertarians should be trying to eliminate the 70%-80% of regulations that large majorities would agree are not necessary and even harmful, rather than going to the extreme of “all regulations are terrible”.
But that’s just me.
I had to mail order a Goretex tent from out of state back in the 1980s because my state said all tents needed to have flame retardant applied, and it would have ruined the Goretex.
Chief and officer uniforms in the Navy when I was in were polyester and melted something terrible in fires. Everyone knew it, the Navy didn't care, and civilians were able to buy polyester clothes.
Fire retardant personal clothes are an easy marketing advantage, if they are any advantage, and none of the government's business. What next, ban hat chin straps because a mugger might pull the hat off backwards and choke his victim? Ban belts because they slow down paramedics? Ban rings and shirt tails and cuffs because they can get caught in machinery and drag people in?
Midwifery. It has existed for centuries without government intervention. The only reason they have been regulated was to reduce the number of midwives for the benefit of the doctors who wanted the birthing business and other related medical procedures.
Any markets related to Art.
I am not a mainstream economist, although I used to be. I am an Austrian economist today and have been for 20 years.
But I am a mainline economist, as meant by Pete Boettke. I cannot think of any market that I want to regulate. I do want laws of justice --- rules of the game --- but all those in my best of all worlds will be what is known as "natural law."
I offer my opinion based on a decade of real experience working with federal regulators in USDA, FDA, and EPA as a professional consultant.
Genuine question: do you want any child labor laws? In particular laws regarding non-citizens.
Seems to me I do want a law banning underage prostitution in general, and human trafficking of children in particular. You would actually be against such a law? Or is your answer that you would “cheat” there and say you approve of a criminal statute in that case but no pt a regulation banning the child sex trade.
I want natural law, which says this, boiled down about as far as I've been able to boil it. "Do not compel another unjustly."
Compulsion is force, threat of force, or fraud. If you like, you can use the word "coerce," instead of compel.
We do need and do have a legal definition of the word "minor." I have no objection to such a definition, nor any other positive law, so long as the law making authority --- Congress in the USA --- pass such law with an 80% + 1 super majority, as I have written elsewhere. https://www.amazon.com/Morality-Capitalism-Dialogue-David-Kendall/dp/1503233243
So now I’m confused.
The question wasn’t about the legal definition of a minor.
You personally do or do not support a regulation against child prostitution, or against trafficking children to another country for prostitution?
If the 14 year old consents, in return for getting to the U.S., is that ok?
You suggest there is a “natural” law regarding same, modulo only the definition of the age of a minor?
I support all the law making anyone wants to propose, so long as the law can be passed with an 80%+1 vote of Congress. What is confusing?
I am confident that Congress will pass a law against child prostitution and trafficking children to another country for prostitution (without checking I'm guessing we already have such laws).
Every society has some definition of "minor" We compel minors all the time for their safety and welfare, do we not? Such compulsion is not unjust. But compelling an adult would be.
The topic was which regulations an economist would support.
I hear you now your standard.
For non- economic regulation, I probably agree with you about the worthiness of the system you suggest.
But for an economist to support any economic regulation that can garner a large supermajority support seems… a bit odd.
I do not support economic regulations in general. Regulations compel adults unjustly. Regulations are laws, too.
Positive laws that can be passed by 80% + 1 majority by both the House and Senate would be the will of "the people." I predict that only natural law and inconsequential positive laws could get passed, just as it should be, in my opinion.
This really is not the venue to dilate further. If you want to pursue these ideas, my little book is published on Substack Economics and Freedom, chapter by chapter.
Looking around the room, I wouldn't regulate bread (no vitamin D requirement), ginger ale, kitchen tables, chairs, coffee, couches, rugs, coats, shoes, for market-specific regulations. I'd want antitrust, though, for every market, and patents, and general legal rules like no-fraud, no-violence, keep-your-contracts, list ingredients, etc.
I have a teaching notes book on regulation that I should maybe finish someday. Comments, encourgement, or discouragement welcomed. It goes: why markets are good, when markets fail, government failure, government design, and then other topics.
https://rasmusen.org/regulation/
You wouldn't regulate bread not be poisonous?
Extend that to every product and service: "Thou shalt not sell fraudulent products."
That would be part of anti-fraud regulation. Bread is ordinariliy thought of as nonpoisonous. One light regulation would be "You may not sell poisonous bread unless it is labelled as poisonous", but I would go for "You may not sell poisonous bread" so people don't hve to pay attention.
What does “antitrust” mean to you, and would you *really* want it for EVERY market?
Unlike the rest of your quite sensible summary, that one seems so open-ended that it is highly unlikely that the benefits would exceed the costs.
Antitrust means, at minimum, not allowing sellers to make contracts (especially binding ones!) to set equally high prices if they form a big part of the market. That applies even to farmers-- I wouldnt let them form an association to all keep their prices high. Like anyting, it's a matter of practicality as to how broad one makes the law.
Alas, I cannot comment, as I am not a mainstream economist.
That was not a pipe.
Thank you for letting me know.
In defense of mainstream economists, perhaps it depends on how you phrase their presumption.
When the glass is half full, “My free market presumption is defeased only 10% of the time in all markets.”
When the glass is half empty, “My free market presumption is defeased in 100% of markets 10% of the time.”
I would add most (all?) liberal professions (teachers, lawyers, physicians, etc) to those I saw here. But I think the question needs clarification. Every market can become cartelized, so anti-trust should apply at least to keep the market entry-free. Agriculture and liberal professions I see as the least capable of becoming cartelized, so it might not be needed.
"Every market can become cartelized,"
Not true at all.
"so anti-trust should apply at least to keep the market entry-free. "
Which it has never done and never could do. I mean can you point to a time anti-trust legislation did good?
The most basic antitrust law is one that prevents sellers from making binding contracts with each other to keep prices high. That' from the common law I think; it goes back to the 1800s and before,
Nothing comes to my mind, but anti-trust agencies often do argue about a merge posing threats to competition, so I don't understand what you mean by "it has never done". Is there a market immune to cartelization? Even lots of firms can tacitly collude with "I cover any price" propaganda.
"so anti-trust should apply at least to keep the market entry-free. "
When did anti-trust ever keep the market entry free? There were always barriers to entry to overcome, of if there weren't it wasn't because of anti-trust legislation.
"Is there a market immune to cartelization?"
Yes, unless you think you can control the price of corn at the farm gate.
Even if every market has barriers to entry, anti-trust can keep them more open than without anti-trust. This is an empirical claim and I don't know much about it. Yes, I do think it's possible to control the price of corn at the farm gate. You just need to create a "corn producer association" with can indirectly keep other farmers informed of everyones' price (directly or not) so they can retaliate.
“Even if every market has barriers to entry, anti-trust can keep them more open than without anti-trust.”
Citation needed.
“Yes, I do think it's possible to control the price of corn at the farm gate. You just need to create a "corn producer association" with can indirectly keep other farmers informed of everyones' price (directly or not) so they can retaliate.”
Through the whole corn market, with literally thousands of producers?
Don't see why would I need a citation. In an entry model an anti-trust agency can enhance competition by stymying a merge between the incumbent and the challenger. If the challenger pays a fixed cost to entry the market, what changes? It doesn't need to be the whole corn market, though, need it? Often those associations have a political economy effect and can gate keep markets... I'll stop answering. Looks to me you're challenging my views without saying anything to defend yours. That's not an interesting exchange on my viewpoint.
Thank you for the nice question that got me thinking. I’d readily agree with the statement yet also I struggle to define any market that I wouldn’t want some kind of fair-dealing regulation at minimum.
If I could be allowed relatively generic anti-fraud-like/do-no-harm-like guidelines that are enforced with impactful fines / punishment that is tested and iterated, beyond that I’d be happy with every industry being free from regulation. It often feels like the regulations for various regulated industries are sold as a way to make the market more fair but often simply entrench established interests while often masking fraud / harm.
Thinking about this another way, I could see any service provided to people above a certain quantum of wealth being unregulated. If you can afford to defend yourself/buy the best advice/etc, why should the state bother?
But it’s an interesting thought to chew on. Thank you for the prompt!
How do you keep an unregulated market unregulated? As agents in the market become more powerful, without regulation, won't they start to tip the scales towards themselves?
Regulation is often at the behest of current large market participants for the purpose of restricting future competition.
Regulatory compliance is costly. Larger firms can better afford the cost, so it disadvantages smaller competitors and future startups.
Disallowing the regulation keeps the market more open to entry by future competitors.
In sum, it's through regulation that powerful market agents tip the scales toward themselves and become more powerful, and it's through a lack of regulation that they are kept less powerful, more perpetually threatened by competition, current or prospective.
Competition.
Which means free entry.
Would "regulation" also include things which facilitate said market? What I'd probably want to do regardless of market are things like an "egregious lemon" penalty/buyback. Granted, one can and should wait until they're proven to be necessary.
The ability to sue after the fact is far better in most cases than a priori regulation.
Most.
Yes, because the government thumb on one scale distorts other participants in that market, and other markets.
A valid purpose of government is to establish social norms that discourages vigilantism. If the lack of regulation would invite individuals to "take the law into their own hands" then it reasons that regulation may be prudent.
The risk of regulatory oversight is that it invariably is used to stifle innovation and competition. How does society avoid this error? By regulating the regulators!
No. Society establishes social norms. Some might justify government enforcement of them, but that is entirely different from government establishing them.
Can we regulate the Federal, State, and, in some cases, Local Government's regulatory powers? or does that "market" not count as a market... I almost see it as one since private business tend to influence regulatory authorities towards rules that are selfishly one sided.
It’s called the Constitution - the greatest regulation of government ever invented.
Also the worst one - except for all the others…
I'd answer "any" or "every", but I am not even an amateur economist.
Child prostitution included? Trafficking immigrants for child prostitution??
Andy G,
Child prostitution is not regulated. It is prohibited.
We prohibit it not to ensure competition or to ensure safety or protected the consumers of child prostitute's services - all that would be regulation - but because it is inherently harmful to the child. It is a form of slavery, and we prohibit slavery.
It is inherently more harmful to someone 17 and a half than someone 18?
How about cigarettes? Inherently more harmful to someone 17 and a half than to someone 18?
How about alcohol? Inherently more harmful to someone 20 and a half than 21?
The age when transactions are allowed is in fact regulation.
I’m not saying I disagree with the regulation against child prostitution; in fact I support it. But it is indeed regulation.
Meh, then the level of theft that turns something from a misdemeanor into a felony is also a mere regulation.
We're talking about something other than that, and I suspect you know it but want to be quarrelsome merely for the pleasure of being quarrelsome.
I do indeed like debate for its own sake.
But I believe everything I wrote above, and I notice you refuse to engage on the other topics beyond sex with children.
We were not discussing pure criminal behavior, like theft, which is not in any way a market - the free exchange of goods and services.
We were discussing market transactions and where one draws the line in terms of regulation.
The point being that *some* regulation is good. Not much, but not zero. Which is what Chartopia claimed but I think not even he believes, let alone most of the rest of us.
I am sick and tired of such useless examples. Why not include throwing children off the Empire State or using them as moving targets on gun ranges, or cooking them for snacks?
“Why not include throwing children off the Empire State or using them as moving targets on gun ranges, or cooking them for snacks?”
Because your ridiculous examples are neither profitable nor common (let alone that there are criminal laws against direct violence against children or adults that all save a fraction of anarcho-capitalists don’t have an issue with).
The inconvenient truth is that the world is not actually as simple as you sometimes try to proclaim it is (or should be).
You might think child sex trafficking is a useless example, but most others do not.
Your examples are the typical “won’t anyone think of the children” and “if it saves one child” kind of nonsense that makes excuses for government. They do nothing to enlighten any discussion.
I made neither such argument nor emotional appeal, but in fact only narrow, very specific claims and objections.
Your desire to extrapolate or change the subject to something else notwithstanding.
You're the one who pivoted to children as victims of criminal acts, in a discussion of regulation.