7 billion out of the 1429 billion in added costs due to regulation.

ermagerd padded numberz!!!1!!1111!11



Of course it's different. Regulations ARE affronts to liberty, you're still wrong.



You mean that if the employees hadn't broken company policy and smoked on site, the fire wouldn't have happened?

You know, safety improvements don't simply come because of regulation? Take George Westinghouse - he made railroads far safer, and not because some regulations opened a market for him.

Theres others, but that's one glaring example of dishonesty that makes me not take the rest of the source seriously. Dishonesty is dishonesty, I know you're willing to overlook it if it supports your opinions, but don't expect those of us who are honest to do the same.

All regulations are an affront to liberty if acid rain was an assault by fossil fuel companies. You can't have one and not the other.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Mar 27 2015 06:45pm

Exactly. Liberty for liberty's sake is just a random preference. There's no argument or logic in support of it, and so it's inherently unpersuasive.

Lol dishonesty. It's not like they didn't give you the source for how they came to such numbers - a study not made by these authors. Just because you personally find their reasoning lacking doesn't mean it's without merit.

Rephrase your busted sentence.

Agreed. I do indeed think liberty is very instrumentally important, but it's not an end in itself.

nah, what i disagree upon is the nature of liberty. liberty isn't just a concept to be achieved, but it's an actual human condition.
theorethical concepts of liberty etc. are worth nothing unless they are actually realised in peoples' capabilities to act and realise their wishes.
liberty is best realised via actual results, not imaginary or theoretical liberty that is libertarianism. mere impotent talk of liberty leads us nowhere.

there is nothing more important than liberty.

actually i'd be willing to support some forms of libertarianism. it'd just take a radical redistribution of wealth.
libertarianism as i see it has nothing to do with justice etc. it's just about defending improperly earned wealth without questioning it.

Why?

What exactly is "improperly earned wealth"?

Unless someone is earning wealth by breaking the law... I'm not sure how one can earn money improperly. You may disagree with the outcome... but unfortunately fairness doesn't work on a central level.

This post was edited by IceMage on Mar 27 2015 08:04pm

Yeah no. It doesnt stop being dishonest because they say how they arrive at the conclusion. It's obviously manipulating the numbers to be higher then they need to be.

Regulation is required to protect liberty.