You've read me wrong. Your reasoning would have me say you don't think there's anything wrong with murder because you don't like regulation.
I disagree with some government regulations in areas I have absolutely no personal involvement in.
I don't think possession or use of marijuana should be illegal, but I never touch the stuff. I don't think radio or television content should be regulated at all, though I don't work in the entertainment industry. (There are "anti-siphoning" laws regulating the pay TV industry here, for example, which prevent pay TV operators from acquiring broadcast rights to certain "significant" events - mainly sporting events such as football grand finals - without making the broadcast available to free-to-air broadcasters as well, which is just stupid. If you want to watch the game, buy a ticket and go to the ground, subscribe to the pay TV service, or go to a pub and watch it on their big screen.) I think censoring films and magazines is a waste of government money, but (apart from going to maybe as many films as you can count on a hand in a year) I have no vested interest in that industry either. And there are laws that don't benefit me, but I agree that their overall benefit is worth the personal inconvenience to me. Copyright, for example.
You're against regulation in general, while I'm against regulation when I think the rights it restricts are more important than the benefits it provides.
If I buy a car from you and a bank lends me money, and that bank's shoddy security leads to someone adopting my identity and ruining my credit rating, not only am I not at fault, I'm not even particularly ignorant - I'm one of the best educated people on the planet with respect to computer security - but there is NOTHING I could do to prevent this problem. Government regulation, according to big government types, is the answer.
In the scenario you describe, you would hold the bank responsible for their negligence, since it was their blunder that damaged your credit rating. I'm talking about the bank giving out loans to people who can't repay them, and the bank losing a lot of money as a result. That's their fault for poor business practices, and I don't believe the government should make it more difficult for all banks to provide loans because this one bank is run incompetently.
Then the question is, what happens to the people with deposits in the bank if it goes broke? I think government regulation is useful here if it's necessary to protect the economy, A sound financial system is vital to trade. Having banks collapse becomes bad news for everyone, whether or not they had the knowledge and opportunity to bank elsewhere.
"I have no idea if it is true or not, but given what you read on the Web, it seems to be a valid concern." -jjayson
[ Parent ]