Thanks for bringing me on board. One piece of clarification, when I said:

A government that has a monopoly on violence does not justify its right to have a monopoly in the selling or not selling of a good

I was not implying that governments do not use their force to monopolize markets only that they are mutually inclusive, in that they don't have to both be true. When I speak of a monopoly of violence I'm only speaking of a small aspect of what we generally consider as government.

Like you I'm also skeptical regulation is beneficial. There is something very attractive about simple and powerful mechanics leading to complex and well functioning systems: like natural selection / mutation and free market. The caveat is now that we're conscious of the forces of evolution we're discussing how we're changing them... for our benefit. The same problem of unintended consequences arises there too.

I hope you're not arguing the current justice system is the best possible system for justice?

You're right. I'm not, but I could argue it is the best we've had so far.

You and I have talked about the faulty nature of eye-witness testimony and how an appellate court judge makes their decisions more based on how long ago they ate than on facts, logic, and reason according to some studies.

This is an opportunity for technology to outperform but requires transparency. Also, just started "Thinking Fast and Slow" tonight and heard him reference this study.