I do not need restraint, reins, or harness, nor to be forced to submit to a regulating authority. I uphold the principle that I shall not initiate force to harm another individual or their private property.

The "practical" objections can be frustrating, but try not to get bogged down in them. They are usually backed up by nothing more than vague notions of "sensible" and "reasonable" regulations.

We know for a fact that buildings burn down and airplanes crash even with regulations. And there are studies, like the one I cited in my article, that show increased regulations (by the FDA, in that case) actually increase deaths.

If all it took was government edicts to make us safe, then why not the most stringent regulations possible? Most people would revolt at such a notion, if for no other reason than they intuitively know that such regulations would strangle the market. And the facts are on your side, like the study I mentioned in my article and above. There are plenty of studies out there showing the same thing.

All pro-regulation advocates respond with is that we need "sensible" or "reasonable" regulations, which are nothing more than vague generalities used to cover up the fact that there is no "sensible" or "reasonable" way to use prior restraints to restrict one's freedom with positive outcomes.

Next time you encounter that argument, try and pin the person done on how they come up with "sensible" or "reasonable" regulations. Trust me, it will be an enlightening experience.

"Safety" and other such goals presupposes a mind able to judge and act freely on that judgment. Prior restraints substitute one's personal judgment for government edicts.

But it is not government edicts that keep planes from falling out of the sky or buildings from burning down. It is the minds of scientists, innovators, and creators.

Accidents and intentional harm will happen in a laissez faire society, and a collectivist society. The real questions are:

Which society is better equipped to innovate and create safer products? Which society has produces advanced materials, insurance companies, etc to deal with such situations?

One where minds are free to act on their judgment, or one where they are shackled by government restrictions? One where capital is not wasted on compliance and can be used to create new products, or one that chews up valuable capital and stifling innovation due to the cost of compliance?

You get the point.

I appreciate the kudos, but I totally reject anarchism.

I am in favor of objective laws being enforced by the government.

What I am against is prior restraints on the free exercise of one's inviolable rights, which is what regulations are. Prior restraints go against the basic American judicial principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. Prior restraints put one in the position of proving their innocence before they have ever acted.

Generally, these prior restraints are rejected when it comes to other rights. Prior restraints are rejected by SCOTUS as "censorship" when it comes to free speech.

Or another example. One may use one's car to go out and murder somebody by running them over. And objective law would hold them accountable for murder.

However, it would be an unconstitutional prior restraint to require each individual to certify to a government agency they do not intend to harm somebody before they get in their car, or to have a device in the car that only permits them to go to certain places.

Prior restraint of action is the essential difference between objective law and regulation.

Oh, I didn't know you were an anarchist. I'm not going to open that can of worms here but you know the war that exists between minarchists/Objectivists and anarchists. I was an anarchist for about a year and then I rejected it entirely. I actually think the anarchist libertarians are even WORSE than Leftists. That's not you Sandi. You're a good person that I think took a wrong turn at Albuquerque on this issue (who can guess where I stole that from - you get extra points). But I hope some details and some speculation on how a laissez faire society would deal with regulations gets addressed in this thread. Maybe we can come up with something new. But it is such an abstract subject that is so removed from the reality of semi-socialist America that solutions are just not visible to us at this point in history.

Yes.

Are you arguing for anarcho-capitalism?

As I understand it, such codes are developed by private organizations and adopted by states. So the issue would be how they would be enforced (so to speak) without government.

The only way I can think of is by using the legal system; i.e. by suing. You know that statists will not be persuaded by that argument. Also, if real estate developers and other related professionals were held liable for poor construction then the insurance companies would become the de facto regulators. But that would be exactly what we want - free individuals being "regulated" by free market forces. This is exactly what pro-interventionists (mostly Leftists but Conservatives also) say is impossible. But then we know what their ultimate intentions are.

As I understand it, such codes are developed by private organizations and adopted by states. So the issue would be how they would be enforced (so to speak) without government.

I'd like to think that any decent building code would prohibit people from using pyrotechnics in confined areas (such as was done in Brazil and Rhode Island). So it's not more regulation, just enforcing the ones we have.

-Neil Parille

The goal of statists is to condition individuals to placidly accept paying tribute to the government for the privilege of exercising their inalienable rights.

This sums up democracy. Where a democratic government removes by coercion, the rights of citizens that were sanctioned by a constitutional government. Citizens are encouraged/forced to look to the state to grant them privileges instead of exercising the rights sanctioned by a constitutional republic. The main catalyst here is ignorance that many people confuse “privilege” with “rights” and I consider that the major instrument of this, is coercive government control of education. Children are conditioned to believe that freedom is a privilege granted by the government.

This also points to a major flaw of being governed. Under socialism privileges are meted out by those holding the purse strings, under a constitutional government privileges/contracts are dished out by those holding the purse strings. This is one of the reasons why I consider that Rand was wrong about limited government. Government is a regulating body, no matter how big or how small. Just in the same light that freedom is unregulated. Partial freedom is not freedom, because it is life behind a framework. Laws are regulations and coercion. It is an oxymoron to cite Laissez-faire capitalism within limited government. This is because governments are agencies of force and they can only exist in a regulated environment, namely within a legal framework. You either have free trade or partial free trade (within a partial framework).

In free trade, contracts are created voluntarily, agreements are made voluntarily. "If violence is a bad way to solve problems then the government is by definition immoral, since government always means a group of individuals who claim the right to initiate violence against everyone else. A gun can only be used in self-defense, it cannot be used to create virtue" (Stefan Molyneux)

And as with freedom and as in free trade, there are no laws necessary bar one, the non-initiation or force (harm) against another individual or their private property.

A classic example of the resounding success of a free trade society without regulation is the internet. People from all over the world get on line to buy and sell on websites such as EBay and Trade Me. Using their choice of currency including PayPal and bit-coins, these people voluntarily buy and sell to strangers, they don’t need government to regulate their trade contracts. (the practicality of suing over a $15 pair of shoes outlines the injustice of justice). Instead the traders came up with their own system of security, namely REPUTATION. Obviously because the internet has been largely unregulated we can fully expect regulations/restrictions and probably censorship, to be implemented in the very near future (but that is another thread). Excellent article Michael

“Laws do not make morality, and morality does not make laws. There’s always a better way.” – Larkin Rose

Yes, this is what we need more of.

Regulation is such a sloppy term. The imprecision with the word lets statists of all types get away with essentially everything. But only the few principled defenders of laissez-faire ever argue against regulations because it is a type of preventative law. Only Objectivists and the better libertarians make that argument.

Still, there are counter arguments that I have heard that while false IMO are not so easily answered. The big one involves when you take actions that can have a potentially negative and destructive effect on other people; i.e. nuclear power plants, transporting explosives, hazardous materials, fire and building codes (especially fire - every time an after hours club burns down and kills a couple of hundred people like it did recently in Brazil you can rest assured that the statists and interventionists will come out of the woodwork screaming for more regulations), etc. etc. And of course the economists will argue this is necessary to prevent "system failure" in the financial markets (what a joke).

I don't have good answers for those detailed questions and I hate that b/c I always end up JUST making the moral argument which rarely ever moves people unless it is backed up with details.

But Michael's essay is a good introduction to why preventative law in the economic realm is wrong. Using freedom of speech was a good technique.

Bloody beautiful!!!  Driving home now but I look forward to reading all the commentary!!