• ZephrC@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      71
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure. I don’t think anybody is arguing that there is any country that couldn’t give their regulations a once-over and improve things by removing a few counter-productive ones here and there.

      That’s not what American style libertarians are actually arguing when they say they want deregulation though, is it?

      • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s generally the type of thing libertarians get upset about. Or shit like floral licensing or cracking down on people braiding hair (this is generally black people, obviously) or the bazillion other types of regulatory capture. Farm subsidies and ethanol mandates/fuel subsidies are also a shitshow.

      • blueeggsandyam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly! Libertarians point to one regulation that isn’t working and push total deregulation. Why not just fix that one regulation? No, absolute deregulation is the only answer.

    • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. It’s stupid to be like libertarians and take a hardline stance on “regulations always bad!!” or “regulations always good!!”. A regulation that bans building dense, walkable communities is bad and needs to be eliminated. Likewise, regulations that ban teachers from talking about the existence of gay people are also bad and need to be eliminated.

      Just like we try to use regulations for good, many others use regulations for ill. It will always be context-specific specific whether we need more regulation or deregulation.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When actual libertarians get a chance to run a town, they don’t start by eliminating zoning laws. This is the kind of thing that happens instead.

      • Cynoid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not surprised by the fact it did collapse, but i’m surprised that libertarians, of all people, did not try to solve the bear problem using extensive amounts of firepower.

        • Ryumast3r@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It did mention that several times the town did form posses to go and cull the bears, but didn’t do enough because you also had people just feeding the shit out of them.

    • Eq0@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      You talk as if benefiting the ruling class was an unwanted consequence of these laws. It’s not. The markets need to be free for the rich to benefit but restricted for the rich to benefit. And maybe some crumbs will fall of the table and the poors will think that the rich are so generous.

        • Eq0@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, there should be rules to benefit the poor. But many of the laws now in effect in particular in the US are specifically not built for that. So many laws would better be dropped than enforced, and many are missing.

          • MxM111@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Why there should be rules to benefit the poor, as opposed minimalistic neutral rules beneficial to the whole society and safety net like UBI? (that what libertarian would argue)

            • AlmightyTritan@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I guess it’s a matter of semantics and if you’re an existing rich person, right? Cause from the perspective of the rich closing up those loop holes would be perceived as purely benefitting the poor.

              For neutral rules to truly be neutral, you almost need to ensure there are services and programs to bring that opportunity to everyone, else it’s just appears more fair without actually increasing accessibility. Which to your point would be something like UBI.

    • finnie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s the irony.

      But Density means communism to them so they’re suddenly fine with regulations and taxes that prop up an unsustainable suburban ponzi scheme because that’s the lie sold about the American Dream.

      When they see how unaffordable housing has become they say, “good, my house is more expensive.”