In response to a recent article that got to the top of the Curie awards about deregulation.
I noticed some major flaws in the argument. It also reminded me of this Joe Rogan podcast with Peter Schiff.
Now the potential rebuttal to this is that by deregulating, people won't buy the house with pyrite in it. They will only buy the homes without pyrite. What about when people die because neither the builders nor the occupants knew this could happen? They didn't know it was bad or maybe they did, but it was still legal. What judicial compensation does the injured party have without regulation?
And the most glaring issue with this argument is the fact you assume 99% of people wouldn't try and use worse products to make more money. Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with making a profit. Let me repeat that, PROFITS ARE NOT EVIL. What I'm saying is that there are a much higher percentage of people willing to compromise on quality than those who wouldn't. While eventually the market may squeeze this scumbag out, another will quickly pop up.
and I haven't even begun about fake medicines and even engine checks and other things.
Having no regulations simply leaves 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.
Having regulation means the sheep is protected by the laws of the land and can contest that vote.
https://steemit.com/economics/@badquakerdotcom/war-is-peace-freedom-is-slavery-ignorance-is-strength