Why would someone want absolutely NO government regulation?

Question

...so that we can eat or use something and die or get sick before we find out it's unsafe? I know the arguments for less government regulation on businesses; but I don't know the argument for absolutely no government regulation. I know government agencies don't always catch everything; but they have saved a lot of lives.

Dr. Jello, have you ever read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair? Someone could lose their finger in a batch of food in a factory and the company wouldn't throw it out. People also don't have the equipment and the means to test whether or not their children's toys have lead paint on them or to test whether or not a company is claiming to sell them meat; but it's not meat.

A company could also claim to be selling you a medication that's supposed to treat your ailment; but it could be nothing but a vitamin. Did you also know that car company's refused to put seatbelt's in their cars until the government made them?

But if McDonald's saves money by cutting corners, then Burger King would see no need to up the quality of their foods. Burger King would think that if they get more customers by cooking better quality food, then McDonald's would spend even more money to outdo them and get their customers back. Burger King would have to increase their production costs again, so they would see it as being cheaper not to serve good quality food. That's the way the Big 3 worked before they got competition from Japan.

Anarchists and some Libertarians want no government interference on any level.

Easy B Me II, you are not paying attention to history when the government did not regulate businesses and goods.

Answer 1

I think the more independent you are and if you are an entrepreneur and you have a business that would be hurt by Govt regulations, you would be against it. I agree with you. Look at all the recalls that are going on involving products from China. If you don't have some regulations with checks and balances, people and/or businesses will try to take advantage of situations. It boils down to people will try to get away with as much as possible till they get caught. With that said, I think the Govt needs to regulate, but not run businesses or services. They are very inefficient. Leave that to the private sector.

Good question. Hope this helps.

Answer 2

We have laws, we just need to enforce them and stop exempting some people from them. That way we can get rid of regulation.

For example, if a person gets sick from food that was not prepared properly, then charge the person responsible with the appropriate crime (criminal negligence, assault, etc.). We don't need a regulation saying you have to cook food properly, we just punish those that don't and end up hurting people.

Furthermore, market forces will get rid of most problems. If people get sick at Burger King and don't get sick at Mcdonalds, people will go to McDonalds, Burger King will go out of business, and people won't get sick anymore.

There is no need for government regulation in a society that is well informed and has a functioning court system.

BTW, I don't know anyone that wants no regulation at all levels of government, just the Federal government. Let each state decide on its own how much regulation it wants. After all, that is exactly what the Constitution says.

Answer 3

Question. If you have people over for dinner, is your food inspected by the government? No? How many people have you killed?

Surely without gvmt regulations, you would serve your guest cheap food so you would keep more of your money. Maybe serve your guest food that was just a little rancid?

What gvmt agency do we need to make sure you don't serve tainted food?

If you think you can serve good food to others without the gvmt, then why shouldn't others be able to do the same?

Added: You are confusing lack of regulation to fraud. These are not the same thing. Fraud is a crime and should always be punished.

If it was found that a company had a finger in their food, how much would it cost them from loss of sales? Why would anyone lose their sales for something like that? Like your argument, it makes no sense.

Do you have gvmt regulations for your job? How do we know you're not poisoning others when you are working? Maybe you need someone from the gvmt looking over your shoulder 24/7. No telling who you may be killing or placing in danger.

Answer 4

Think with me for a moment: What is a free market? What are its features? What is the role of government in creating or destroying it? I'm sure you would agree that there were no free markets in Soviet Russia. Why not? Because the state eliminated private property and private profit (and a lot of private persons too). It set fixed prices for all commodities. It forced the people to use a currency that did not float on the world market. It outlawed the "black market" which was the closest thing there was to a "free market". Since our government has avoided the temptation to do all these things, do we therefore have a free market? Absolutely not. The American idea of a "free market" today allows the government to interfere as it pleases in individuals' freedom. It produces rules and regulations ad nauseum and is constrained only by the inertia of our constitutional system of checks and balances. As long as Congress approves, the President does not veto, and the Supreme Court upholds, we can lose any freedom we have - "for our own good".

So we still have to answer our question: What is a free market? A free market is nothing but social cooperation as defined above. In a truly free market, individuals are free to engage in any consensual economic interaction that they please. Whenever two people decide to make any kind of exchange, both believe that they will improve their condition; both agree to exchange because each believes he will gain. Both parties profit according to their personal scale of values. Thus unrestricted exchange is the necessary prerequisite for the unrestricted pursuit of happiness. The only rule inhibiting individual action in a free society is that there be no non-consensual interaction. No one can use force, or the threat of force to get what they want. No one can steal from another, or pollute his environment as that is the taking of a value from someone without their consent. Thus in a truly free society, coercion of individuals by individuals is outlawed and there is no governmental intrusion into the sphere of consensual social or economic interaction. Whatever one wants to do that doesn't coerce others is allowed. Whatever exchange one makes with others is allowed as long as both parties agree to the exchange. Any one can engage in any occupation he wants, buy any item he wants to buy, work for any wage he can obtain, sell any goods or services he wants to sell. Furthermore, he can rest assured that the government will not directly or indirectly subsidize or aid himself or his competition. Every intervention by government means that some individuals lose the freedom to improve their condition in the way they think best, and other individuals gain an advantage which they can exploit. Our country is being destroyed by coercion; be it government intervention, organized or unorganized crime, or theft and persecution perpetrated by lawyers and judges--called lawsuits.

Since the government cannot create wealth by producing profitable goods and services, its coercive interventions can only restrict citizens from doing what they would otherwise do to improve their own lot in life. Intervention is always restriction; it takes away choices in the name of protecting us from ourselves and each other. It prevents the creation of wealth. But when viewed narrowly from a particular individual's of business's interest, a specific government intervention can confer unearned profits and protection from competition. The government's promise to back savings deposits stimulates consumer demand for such accounts. The home mortgage tax deduction stimulates consumer demand for expensive homes--helps the wealthy and the construction industry, hurts those too poor to afford a home or unable to obtain credit. Every government intervention can be analyzed in this way; who it benefits and who it hurts and how it diminishes that welfare of everyone in the long run.

The problem is that people have no idea that society can be anything other than what they're used to. If the government delivered milk to each family's door every morning for decades, no one would be able to imagine that private business could supply milk at an affordable cost in just the form that the consumer wanted. This is the "vision problem" when it comes to what society might be like

NOTE: TaMeishia, and you're just not paying attention at all !!

Answer 5

People just want to be free to do what they want. If they want to do something to kill themself, then they think they should have that right. Opposed to the laws of nature, government regulation is something artificial and created.

Answer 6

Because of the philosophy,

I should be able to do what I want, when I want, and no one else should be able to say or do anything about it.

(doesn't this sound like the baby boomer philosophy or the ME generation as in "it's all about me.")

Answer 7

Agreed! Some things certainly should be regulated.

Answer 8

Before the FDA, everyone was dropping dead from what they ate.

Government is the only source of our safety, truth and future.
.

Answer 9

It costs too much