Capital, which I prefer to feudalism, is still inhuman in the sense that it survives by exploiting other humans -- you see that much, yes? Or no? — Moliere

Some people use other people, exploit them, for their own benefit. That is true, has always been true, and likely will always be true. I will agree to use “inhumane” for that but certainly not “inhuman.”

I think not only you, but I and Martijn and everyone here lives in an inhuman system. — Moliere

I recognize many people feel that way. I don't. It feels like a cheat to me. Looking at my own life, I can see that pretty much all the problems I have are my own responsibility. I know that's not how it is for everyone. I haven't been deported to El Salvador. But maybe you and Martijyn haven't been either.

It's really only because you were born into that way of seeing things that you are able to raise the questions you have here.

Pretty much every issue brought up by the OP has been kicked around since the earliest days of philosophy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sorry to be so long in getting back to you on this. You pointed out some inconsistencies in my post and I've been rethinking what I wrote. As you've pointed out, I mixed up a couple of things. First - philosophical questioning of social norms has been around for as long as there has been philosophy. I can't imagine a more radical rejection of societal standards than the Tao Te Ching. What that says to me in the context of @Martijn's OP is that the sense of urgency and novelty he brings to the discussion is misplaced. Recognition of the "illusory" nature of societal norms is nothing new and doesn't really solve any problems except, as I noted, personal spiritual and psychological ones.

What I mixed up in there is our modern (and I guess post-modern) rejection of tradition and constraints on self-expression. I think those are relevant, I think it's easier to be a iconoclast than it was in Lao Tzu's time - easier and safer.

The problem the OP identifies stems from a dominant conception of reason and desire in liberalism in particular, which reduces all common goods to individual goods, and man to an atomized, "rational" utility maximizer in terms of such goods. Such a view will tend to make cooperation "just another strategy" within competition. The former is ordered to the latter, instead of vice versa. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I guess I don't really understand this argument beyond what I wrote previously - We are naturally competitive and cooperative - what's called for is balance. Again, I think this comes down to a personal recognition rather than a societal one. The society of 2,000 years ago Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu describe seems pretty similar to ours in terms of the pressures and pains of societal expectations and personal desires, at least in the social classes which were their audience.

The assertion that the issues in the OP have "always been around and recognized" seems to contradict the claim that it is only modernity and liberalism that allow OP to recognize such things, no? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. As I noted above, I mixed up two different things. Their related, but I'm not sure how.

As I see it, the changes you are talking about are, always have been, and can only be personal, not political ones. ...

...At any rate, here is why I think the bolded is wrong.

1. The development of self-determination and self-governance, which allows man to overcome the issues mentioned in the OP, to live a flourishing live, to attain to liberty, and—crucially—to be a good citizen capable of participating in communal self-rule, all require cultivation and education. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Hmmm. Do I believe this? Probably not.

Man cannot cultivate and educate himself entirely by himself. We are dependent early in life, and our ability to become more self-determining (e.g. able to provide for our needs, able to transcend the tyranny of immediate desire and gratification, etc.) must be positively fostered and cultivated. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think there's some irony, or maybe contradiction, here. To a large extent, cultivation and education are the agents that immerse us in the sea of social expectations.

Because of 1 and 2, the solutions to the issues in the OP cannot simply be privatized and individualized. Politics is, by definition, the science of the common good. One cannot exclude the cultivation by which man is able to participate in common goods and self-rule from politics. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure, maybe. But each time someone like Martijyn achieves the kind of realization he has, it's a revolution, and you can't institutionalize revolution. You can't normalize the rejection of norms.

Right. ↪Martijn, if everything is a story/fiction then there can be no story/fiction / reality/non-fiction dichotomy. For a distinction to have content, "appearance" must differ from "reality." If it's "appearance all the way down," then appearances are reality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think you are agreeing with me here. Maybe I'm just surprised.

Is the world we live in "primarily built on fear, ego, and greed?" No, of course not...

...this is obviously a common sentiment, that is, based on polling, becoming more common, particularly in the young. I hardly see how its condescending to dislike the current culture. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The condescension I see in the OP is the explicit claim, not that Martijyn has been deluding himself, but that all of us have been deluding ourselves. Speak for yourself. I don't live in an "inhuman system," although many people do. I'm one of the most fortunate people in the history of the world.

You write such thoughtful posts; I really enjoy reading them. — Martijn

Perhaps rather than responding to @Count Timothy von Icarus’s response to my comment, it would make more sense for you to respond directly to mine.

An interesting and thoughtful OP, much of which I'm in sympathy with, but, for me, there are some off notes. You decry the loss of our humanity and our oppression by "norms," but then look back with a longing for earlier times. I think for many would say that the main problem with a modernist viewpoint is the loss of those norms - traditions. It's really only because you were born into that way of seeing things that you are able to raise the questions you have here.

It also bothers me that the tone of your post is condescending toward those who are somehow less enlightened than you are. Here are some specific comments.

Competition. From a young age, we are taught (especially as men) that life is competitive. We compete for homes, partners, jobs, physical space in public transportation or while on the road, and we even compete for time and attention. This is what an advertisement is in the first place: a form of propaganda meant to steal your focus and attention. Social media is especially notorious when it comes to this form of evil...

...When we reflect on the history of the human species, we find that cooperation was the way to go for a long, long time. — Martijn

This is an unrealistically romantic view of human nature. It's a good thing to be able to stand back and look a our competitive behaviors and evaluate their usefulness, but to claim that they are somehow unnatural or avoidable is just not true. We had a family of foxes in our back yard a couple of summers ago. The pups were always play fighting and wrestling. I think humans are just as naturally competitive and aggressive as those foxes. Cooperation is also a valuable approach to social living. It's not a question of getting rid of competitiveness, it's a question of balance.

Desire. Also known as 'hunger', this is also something that has been drilled into us from a young age. — Martijn

Twenty five hundred years ago, Lao Tzu wrote

There is no greater sin than desire,
No greater curse than discontent,
No greater misfortune than wanting something for oneself.
Therefore he who knows that enough is enough will always have enough. — Tao Te Ching Verse 46 - Gia-Fu Feng translation

Other civilizations and societies in the past have been just as "inhuman" as ours today is. If you're looking for a return to some state-of-nature, your goal is unrealistic - naive. As I see it, the changes you are talking about are, always have been, and can only be personal, not political ones. As I noted, the irony is that it is the breakdown of norms that allow us to see the things you have seen.

To expand on the first two points, you can basically boil down almost everything we do in modern society to norms. "It's always been this way." "This is normal"...

...Norms are illusions. There is no normal, as the world is simply in constant flux. All the laws we have created for ourselves, the traditions we keep or reject, the way we shape our daily lives, and how we interact with the world and each other, are consequences of the stories we tell ourselves. — Martijn

Norms are no more illusions than any other aspect of human social life. Yes, they're stories, but all the things we know about the world are stories. Every human idea is a story. Your OP is a story. Humans tell stories. All our mental and social life is made up of stories. Stories are at the heart of human nature.

To summarize: this entire world we currently live in is primarily built on fear, ego, and greed. These factors affect not just everything we do externally, but especially what happens to us internally. So many people nowadays are mentally unwell, or they live in fear, or suffer from depression, because of the deeply embedded illusions we are falling for. The stories we are telling ourselves and each other right now are deeply sickening and inhuman, — Martijn

Is the world we live in now as terrible as the picture you paint? It isn't to me. You'll find many people who agree with you but who place the blame on a loss of norms rather than their negative influences. Is the world we live in "primarily built on fear, ego, and greed?" No, of course not. Not in my life and not in those of people I know and know of. This is the part of you post I see as condescending.

Let's not deny that it’s natural to be struck by the fact that there is something rather than nothing—or to want an explanation. Instead we should distinguish between the desire for a reason and the legitimacy of any particular answer. Our concern is for when that desire underwrites metaphysical commitments without sufficient warrant—when “I can’t imagine it being otherwise” becomes “this must be how it is.” — Banno

I like this, but it raises the question of what “sufficient warrant” means. The answer I’ve always given is that usefulness is the measure of a metaphysical position. I think you probably mean something different.

Besides that, this is not a particularly useful original post. — Wayfarer

I disagree.

What is real? How do we know what is real? — Truth Seeker

The only things that have a true claim to being real are those phenomena we humans experience in our own daily lives - gummi bears, 1975 Ford Mustangs, love, ball-point pens. The only sense in which all other phenomena are real is as reflections of that primary reality.

weren't they gang members? — Tzeentch

No

The problem in Europe has long been the establishment itself, which is the party that shows the actual signs of authoritarianism, by ceding ever more power to the corrupt, untransparant, undemocratic cesspool that is Brussels, by cracking down on dissenting voices under the guise of 'misinformation', by calling everything to the right of themselves 'extreme right', etc. — Tzeentch

Have they deported any innocent legal residents to El Salvador without due process of law recently?

Is it because this movie was legitimately bad? Is that what opened the door to this? Or what? — frank

I’m not familiar with the controversy around Snow White, but your post reminds me of the recent hooha about using a black actress to play the Little Mermaid. Donald Trump has helped promote a golden age of allowing people to bring their hatred for black people and other minorities out into the open.

Knowledge and reason are specifically developed to constrain our choices.

↪If that were so, the notion of 'reification" would be rendered senseless. I — Banno

Correct. Redundent.

merely reified abstractions — 180 Proof

All of reality is merely reified abstractions.

All of my answers are based on my non-mathematicians understanding.

Is this the same as saying that the infinity of all integers is larger than the infinity of all even integers? — Hanover

No

you have two sets, one composed of all numbers and the other composed of all numbers except the number 3, the first set is larger than the second? — Hanover

No

As to my first question, if you subtract the total number of even integers from the total number of integers, what is your sum? — Hanover

The difference between the two sets is the same size as the sets themselves, which are equal.

As to my first question, if you subtract the total number of even integers from the total number of integers, what is your sum? — Hanover

You get a set of numbers which is the same size as the initial two sets.

As to the second question, if you do the same, is the answer 1? — Hanover

I’m not sure

I'm going to be on the road until next Monday and may not have a chance to respond much till then.

But a sense of property is a fundamental human trait that can already be observed in toddlers. No government necessary. — Tzeentch

That's a pretty naive way of looking at it. So, all I need to justify my ownership of my home is a "sense of property?" I just claim it's mine and, I guess, maintain possession of it against any who disagree with me, and that makes it so?

That will virtually always remain the case, which is why I would focus on reducing the government's ability to bestow privileges, thus making it senseless to lobby, and lowering the bar for SMEs - big businesses' natural enemy - to indirectly put the power back into the hands of the average Joe. — Tzeentch

Do you think there is any possibility that the nature of our economic system will change to allow small businesses and the average Joe to be in charge. Short of a total collapse of civilization. Given that it will never happen, it is reasonable to use government regulation to create a more balanced system.

I believe in something like natural rights — NOS4A2

I own a house on land in Massachusetts. It was originally included in a grant from the King of England to the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The colony then portioned out smaller grants to people who wanted to start communities. The leaders of those communities then granted properties to people who wanted to move into that town. Over the years, those granted properties were subdivided, sold, and developed until the real estate system we have today resulted. I don't see any "natural right" in this process. Governments took the property by fiat and created the property rights out of the air. Ownership was legitimized and documented by the government, which also enforces the laws that protect property rights.

Like it or not, God didn't give us our properties, the government did. It's a service it provides. I think protection of property rights is very important - the quality of my life depends on it - but it's a legal and not a moral responsibility.

Sorry, way over my head.

Not all numbers are expressible as fractions, only the rational numbers are. All infinities made up of rational numbers are equivalent - they are countable. Numbers not expressible as fractions, e.g. pi, make up a larger infinity, they are not countable.

@Tzeentch, @NOS4A2, @AmadeusD

While we're all here, I'd like to bring up another specific instance of government support for business. I alluded to it earlier but did not follow up. As I understand it, one of the most important issues for libertarianism and other similar ideologies is protection of property rights. Establishment and protection of property rights is probably the most fundamental of all government regulatory practices. Ownership of all property is ultimately traceable back to government action - either grants, sales, leases, or legal recognition. Whether we like it or not, God does not establish property rights, governments do. I'm not sure about elsewhere, but the charters for property granted by British kings and queens here in the eastern US included specific obligations of the grantees to the Crown. Those obligations were passed on with the properties when they were transferred.

This struck me when I was thinking about the broadcast industry. Back in the 1920s, the US government created a completely new and lucrative property right and gave it to business by issuing permits for their operations. Those rights were protected by preventing others from infringing on the frequencies specified in those permits. Clearly, the broadcast industry could not exist as we know it without communications regulations.

Just wanted to hear your thoughts on this.

Corporations are state-authorized, public entities - they exist by virtue of the state. If we need the government to protect us from the power of corporations, they should probably just stop creating them. — Tzeentch

I don't think that's a realistic scenario, but it does highlight a point I made earlier - business as it is currently practiced can not exist without government regulation.

That aside, government intervention should be a last resort, and first and foremost the market should be organized in such a way that it lowers the bar of entry. — Tzeentch

How would that work? Who would organize the market if not the government?

This is why natural monopolies are essentially impossible.

Rules and regulations (which governments love) are the natural enemy of SMEs, however. And that's where big business and government find each other. — Tzeentch

This is something similar to what I wrote in the OP. I wasn't directly calling for more regulation, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of using regulation to aid business while resisting doing the same for workers, customers, and people in general.

I don't see what's cynical about it. — Tzeentch

We disagree.

Prima facie, no. — AmadeusD

I think any reasonable person would, on some basic level, be against exploitation. I certainly am, and there is nothing in the classical liberal position that should suggest otherwise. — Tzeentch

Absolutely. — NOS4A2

Thanks for the answers. This is a bit different from the direction I thought this thread would go when I wrote the OP, so I'm not adequately prepared to have this discussion right now. Maybe I'll start another thread later.

I’d be interested in hearing your response to the question I’ve asked @Tzeentch and @NOS4A2. Do we have an obligation not to benefit from the exploitation of others?

This has been an interesting, useful discussion for me, but I've never thought we would convince each other of anything significant. You and I won't change our minds based on what we've said here. Even so, my thoughts on these issues have become clearer, at least for myself.

I hope it is merely irony to advocate for the regulation of everyone’s lives just in case powerful people were to enslave us. — NOS4A2

Powerful people have been exploiting the less powerful for their own benefit forever. This is not news. There probably hasn't been any significant change in human nature for 200,000 years. It's what we do unless there's someone or something there to stop it.

Let's stop the obfuscation - what is your answer to my question? Do you as a libertarian/liberal have a responsibility not to benefit from the exploitation of others.

What varies in an electromagnetic wave? — Quk

In my understanding, it is the strengths of the interacting electric and magnetic fields that vary. There is no medium beyond that.

You don't know,
You don't know my mind
When you see me laughing,
I'm laughing just to keep from crying

Especially the so-called "conservatism" in the US could be described more accurately to be simply lobbying efforts for the super rich disguised in an traditional political movement that ideological roots are in conservatism. — ssu

I think that's an over-simplification, although there is certainly truth in it.

Yet not every country is like the US. Many countries do have strong trade unions and the left has been in power, usually that left being the Social Democrats. — ssu

Yes, this is the image I have of governance in western Europe. How does your view from Finland match up with @Tzeentch's from the Netherlands? Is it a difference between the two countries or a difference in political ideology? Do Europeans get better lives for their higher taxes?

The above description of regulation simply doesn't cut it when you look at Nordic countries and many EU countries, even if they have right-wing governments. — ssu

Again, that's consistent with my somewhat naive understanding of European politics and economics.

He has a point to some extent, but this misses the (now much more well-known) fact that dynamic systems can also hit tipping points and totally break down. Also, even if there is "equilibrium in the long run," as Keynes said, "in the long run we're all dead." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think it's simpler than dynamic systems devolving into chaos, although I certainly have seen enough of that over my economic lifetime. It's a matter of values - is it acceptable to build and maintain a society on the suffering of that society's members.

Anyhow, to the OP, of course there is great hypocrisy in corporate America (and often vis-á-vis where politicians and corporate interests intersect). Unfortunately, the system is sort of set up almost to ensure that. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, and this is nothing new. And it's not uniquely associated with capitalism. Those with economic power will always use it to take advantage of those without. I guess it's human nature. I'm not asking for a golden age of charity and fairness. I'm not even necessarily asking for more progressive programs, although that would be good. In the context of this discussion, I'm only asking for recognition of the hypocracy.

They are of course, real people and were (I think quite plausibly) really left leaning, but they were also operating in a system of furious competition where "responsibility" means watching short term profits and share prices. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I've watched this process take place several times in my work history - as companies I worked for became bigger, focus changed from one of client/customer service to one of financial management. In the most recent case, the wonderful moderate-sized engineering company I worked for expanded, got money from venture capitalists, and was purchased by a larger engineering company which then went public. Managers and project managers jobs changed and required a much larger emphasis on cashflow, work backlog, employee utilization, and stock price rather than health and safety, worker well-being, and client service.

In my opinion, arguing for more taxes and expecting the government to fix things isn't taking responsibility.

Taxes have to come from somewhere - and that includes the lower income strata. The idea that there is a huge pile of money lying around that governments can freely dip into without it being missed, is magical thinking. — Tzeentch

This has been a useful discussion - it's helped me get my head together on what I really see as the issue. Both you and @NOS4A2 have forced me to look a bit deeper into my beliefs. Earlier in this thread I wrote that, at base, this does not need to be about taking responsibility for other's lives, it can just be about not benefitting from the suffering of others. I had never thought of it explicitly in those terms before. This issue has not been addressed in previous responses. I'd like to hear what both of you have to say.

In my opinion, arguing for more taxes and expecting the government to fix things isn't taking responsibility. — Tzeentch

Here's my simplistic understanding of history. In the US Constitution, the government was set up restrict the power of large institutions which control social and economic life - the church and the government itself. Since then, I guess as a result of the industrial revolution, another institutional player has entered the field - business and especially corporations. That very powerful institution has a vast amount of power over our lives which our society is not set up to limit. That kind of limit is needed. Where can that come from if not government?

I would much rather rely on a friend or family member for any of those things. And they're much more likely to provide actual help, because it is based on a personal relationship. — Tzeentch

Is that the answer? I don't have to pay a living wage because I can count on families to fill in the gaps. That's incredibly cynical. Not cynical, corrupt. I'm a pretty affluent American and when my wife and I were just getting started, we received financial help from our families to buy a house and to allow my wife to take care of our children rather than work full time. I try to give that same kind of help to my children. Most people don't have the benefit of that kind of help.

My wife and I contribute somewhere between five and ten percent of our incomes to charities. I've been working on increasing that amount. I have volunteered extensively in my town - I was a member of the volunteer fire department for 25 years and I volunteered on town committees and in cub scouts. All of that together is not enough.

That's a fact, although you disagree, anarchy and libertarianism/liberalism won't work to provide a decent society.

In my OP I tried to be clear - I'm not here to rail against the evils of conservatism, capitalism and corporativism. I'm just talking about the hypocrisy of fighting against using regulation to protect the great majority of people against the predatory actions of those who have economic power when the foundation of capitalism is built on government involvement.

There is plenty anarchist and libertarian literature showing that the opposite is the case. I’ll accept your experience in good faith but I’m going to defer to my own experience. — NOS4A2

I'm not talking about literature, I'm talking about real life. Can you give some examples of large complex societies where non-governmental institutions provide conditions for a decent life? Or, as I just described in my post to @Tzeentch, at least prevent people from benefitting from the misery of others. Do we trust in the market? Has that ever worked? Do we count on the people with control of economic conditions? Has that ever worked?

They just have a little more faith in human nature and their fellow man, that if the government disappears tomorrow not everyone will go to war with one another. They believe people will largely cooperate, as they do already. — NOS4A2

When given the opportunity, powerful people will enslave others. Will use violence to prevent organizing. Will pay less than livable wages to people with limited choices. Will allow their employees to work in life-threatening conditions. Same as it ever was. To the extent that it isn't, it's because of government and labor unions.

But most of all they are taking a moral stance. They refuse to rely on an instrument of exploitation and coercion to achieve cooperation with others. To do so, to me, is a sign of moral poverty. — NOS4A2

Your moral purity is maintained based on the lives and misery of millions of people.

Speaking of pie in the sky, the vain hope that we can elect a bunch of angels to run the government is an absurd one. But, I guess we’ll keep trying anyways. — NOS4A2

We don't need angels, we need Democrats. Well... even I don't believe that. I don't expect perfection, but it should be better than it is.

This is a very uncharitable view, and I think it is also false.

In my experience, libertarians and classical liberals (I consider myself the latter) care just as much about their fellow man as anyone else. They simply disagree on how that care should be expressed. — Tzeentch

As I see it, it's not a question of expressing concern for humanity, it's about taking responsibility for their welfare. To lighten that a bit, it's at least about not benefitting from their misery. As I see it, it is not possible to live in a modern society without doing that. Do libertarians pay wages adequate for their workers to live decent lives, or do they let the market have it's way? Do they provide for a safe workplace? Do they provide clean and secure housing for their tenants? Do they limit themselves to a reasonable return on investment to allow them to provide these benefits? It seems clear to me that most people with power over other's lives don't do that without government involvement, regulation, at a minimum.

Turning charity and humanism into a state-mandated process is objectionable for various reasons. The most obvious one being that states are flawed institutions that simply aren't able to provide the solutions they promise. The other is that it replaces the personal process and turns it into an anonymous one - the giver no longer feels like they did a good thing, and the recipient no longer feels they were given anything other than what they were entitled to in the first place. If you force people to do 'the right thing', then they no longer get to choose out of their own volition and thus the moral act is devalued if there is any moral act left to speak of at all. — Tzeentch

This rings a resounding hollowness. If government is not the solution, tell me what is. Either that or acknowledge that you don't see it as your problem, however sympathetic you are to your fellows. As for "...they no longer get to choose out of their own volition and thus the moral act is devalued if there is any moral act left to speak of at all," - that is an outrageously lame virtue signal.

The (extended) family has fulfilled this role throughout the ages, and I believe it should have a much bigger role in modern society.

In general, I believe people should be encouraged to create and maintain social networks that they can fall back on. Social bonds between people cannot be replaced by a government surrogate. — Tzeentch

Do you really think these institutions are capable of meeting the needs of people with no decent healthcare, housing, education, nutrition, etc. Not "throughout the ages" but now in a crowded, interconnected world where workers do not have primary control over their economic lives. I don't.

The alternative is to do it ourselves. Even the most limited, night-watchman state, does not preclude our obligations to our fellow man and to our communities.

I would argue that delegating those duties and responsibilities to a bureaucracy or voting for a political party is the very least one could do in that regard, so much so that’s it’s tantamount to doing nothing, save that it allows us to signal our bonafides and allegiances. I don’t think that any of this crosses the statist mind. — NOS4A2

In my experience, libertarians don't really have much interest in "our obligations to our fellow man and to our communities." Take environmental protection - a typical libertarian recommendation of what to do when Dupont dumps tetraethyldeath in the river where I get my drinking water is to take them to court. If you don't see how laughable that is, there's not much more I can say.

Most libertarians are not interested in the welfare of their fellow citizens. Many of them see themselves as rugged individualists who deserve all the credit for what they have accomplished. They don't recognize what has been given to them just by living in our society.

Libertarianism is just another name for anarchy. I'm not using that as an insult. I mean it as a description. This from the web - Anarchy - the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government. And it won't work, can't work, for any large modern society. It's pie in the sky.

There's a lot of truth in what you've written, although it's a bit of a caricature. You've also broadened it beyond the scope of my OP, which is fine with me. I look at it from the point of view of the regulations I have dealt with personally and think are especially important - occupational safety and health, environmental protection, consumer protection. These agencies are intended to protect the most vulnerable people in our society and they make a big difference.

How did you arrive at that unconventional definition of "Metaphysics" as subconscious Faith?*1 — Gnomon

No more. I won't discuss this with you again. As I noted, it doesn't work.

In another thread, we clashed about my unconventional (Aristotelian) definition of Meta-Physics*1 (abstract ideas vs concrete things) ; i.e. non-physical ; mental ; conceptual. But, at the time, I didn't know how you understood the term, or why you found my version so repugnant. So I assumed you considered Metaphysics to be a reference to Theology-in-general, or Catholic Scholasticism in particular. — Gnomon

I would add my own personal philosophical worldview to that list of pre-Bang speculations. And you are not expected to accept it on faith as a description of the post-Bang world. It is instead, a guide for thinking about philosophical Meta-physics (Ontology -- the Why of being), not empirical Physics (the How of evolving). :smile: — Gnomon

You and I have discussed this numerous times and each time I explain how I understand metaphysics. After all this time we have no excuse. Either I explain badly or you are not listening carefully. Either way, we never seem able have a fruitful discussion.

Large businesses have always used their lobbying power to gain special privileges, which is one of the primary mechanisms through which market regulation tends to favor them.

This is why market regulation often misses its mark: the big businesses it is meant to target have ways to circumvent, bend and change the rules, while the small businesses that are instrumental in counteracting the power of large businesses are disadvantaged. — Tzeentch

I agree with everything you've written, but what's the alternative? I would be more sympathetic to the libertarian view if there were any acknowledgement of a societal obligation to create a society where people can live decent, secure lives. Fact is, I don't think it ever crossed most of their minds. They don't really care. Do you?

Yes, most government regulation benefits the property owner, business, corporations. What institution other than government can protect regular people living and working in the society from business, corporations, oligarchs, and, yes, government itself? Worker safety and environmental regulations have made a vast difference in the quality of life of most of us. Social Security reduced the poverty rate of people over 65 from about 50% to about 10%. Who else but government can fill this role. The libertarian answer is charity, voluntary associations, and the courts. Even they know that's baloney.

Without fault, you will find the areas of the market with the most regulations to be the most monopolistic, and most broken. — Tzeentch

Do you have some representative examples of heavily regulated industries that are monopolistic and lightly regulated industries that are not?

It's difficult to even imagine an entirely--or largely--unregulated large economy. How would an economy even become successfully large without regulation and governance in place at an early stage of development? — BC

Agreed. It seems obvious, but looking at the justifications libertarians/liberals give for their positions, they look a lot like anarchists. Somehow the world will self-organize if we just don't mess with the market.

In all, the ideological urge against regulation is cynical. — BC

I'm not sure about that. For a lot of them I think it's sincere - a case of ideology overcoming self-interest.