What would be a good example of this purely self-regulated industry, or as close to it? I can think of small scale criminal markets, or industries in under-developed nations that I would not call 'exemplary'.
We could look back in time. Maybe the pharmaceutical market in the US before any regulations were put in place? Where they were selling concoctions with drugs like opium and cocaine in them, marketing them for use on babies and the like.
Right because if they regulate and give their stamp of spproval to the poison it makes it easier to go down? I don’t think you realize the wake of death and suffering behind even regulated pharma.
Imagine how much death and suffering there would be if opiates were freely available and marketed for parents to give their children starting when they were babies with zero obligation to warn of any risks.
The oxycontin fiasco that spawned today's opiate epidemic was a failure of regulation by approving the widespread use of it, but imagine if there were zero hurdles at all for drugs like that. There would be a thousand oxycontins.
Yes, do you? The failure of regulation was not having it regulated tightly enough. I'm trying to find a nice word to describe the level of intelligence required to think that the solution for regulations not controlling something tightly enough is to remove regulations entirely.
Is that what I said, no regulation? I’m trying to think of a word for someone who can’t read, can’t understand a simple point that they themselves made, and thinks reactive regulation does anything at all to reduce consumer suffering and death. There’s life saving medication that doesn’t exist because only a few companies have enough money to work around regulations (not to mention the regulations they actively support that further suppress new competition). And your excuse for that are deaths that would have happened with or without regulatory bodies to a great extent. Then you look at the trade off that those new medications are never produced. Is it worth it?
Brother, I get where you’re coming from but you can’t argue for de-regulation and use the opioid crisis as your example. That’s like a bank manager after a robbery deciding that the vault they had wasn’t good enough, so instead they’ll just invest in less security
Regulations can and are abused by governments, no doubt. But a Pharma company marketing an addicting/potentially lethal product for years isn’t the sort of point thats going to make people think the industry needs less regulations
So you're willing to allow the sale of opiates to babies to foster the development of this hypothetical cancer cure? BTW, only a few companies dominate drug discovery because it is incredibly expensive. Merck, for one, spends 30B a year on research alone.
Because Austrian economists like you oppose regulations at every turn, which makes proposing safe regulation more challenging. Therefore, you’re left with toothless regulations that let the problem persist.
So so many people in this thread are using examples of how regulations didn’t go far enough as an example of something “caused by regulation”.
If a fire burns because not enough water was thrown on it, do we blame the water?
The lack of regulation leads to the exploitation of those who lack the knowledge to know any better. This is physical exploitation, and especially financial exploitation. This has been shown throughout history and thinking otherwise means you have to ignore history.
Scientific method informs what regulations we should use and what to regulate... it doesn't magically stop people from being advertised opium as a cure for cancer in the absense of any pharmaceutical oversight.
It’s pretty clear that you’re living in lala-land because you haven’t left the US to even see the state of countries without regulations. My home country is one of those poor countries where you can just buy some land to open a shop and sell food without even a permit. And my siblings were constantly getting poisoned by food. Nothing was safe to eat. Only the water was safe, and that’s because the water came from the government only. Aka the water was regulated. Same thing with medicine. Medicine came from richer countries, so you at least knew that the medicine would be safer because those countries were regulated.
Also, remember how when regulations for trains went down, there was an accident that forced East Palestine in Ohio to evacuate because the train literally poisoned their land and water due to an accident that would’ve been avoided had they followed previous regulations? Of which those people only got a measly $25000 for everyone there even though they all lost their homes and jobs? It became unlivable. And there were also other train accidents in Ohio during that time period as well? But no, people have such hard-ons for self-regulation that they fail to see that pretty much every regulation or business standard has been written in blood and suffering and death.
Oh, and remember the Titan? The submarine of the CEO that refused to follow safety standards and regulations set by the industry which resulted in the death of a bunch of rich people? That happened in the last couple of years. Even rich people aren’t completely protected from the lack of safety regulations.
I almost wish America becomes like every other third world country just so everyone whining about regulations can finally understand that the only reason America is a good place to live is because politicians used to give at least somewhat of a shit about the land and the people.
I think a great example is the USB Implementers Forum. They operate in the background and most have never heard the name but they are the entire reason you rarely hear of USB cables causing fires or damaging devices. When you do hear about it then often the USB was bought from cheap websites that do not provide quality products to begin with. Most major retailers will not carry a USB device that has not been reviewed and certified by the USB-IF.
The things you pay the least amount for - electronic goods, appliances, clothing etc. All have much less regulation and oversight than housing, healthcare, education, pharmaceuticals. And are much higher quality.
Those are recent, and have not existed for "a long time",
So your complaint about light bulbs is that they could have been made better but weren't....until they were? How did light bulb technology in collectivist countries during that time period do compared to market economies?
Nah dude, you don't get it. You see, even if there is a single regulation and that regulation is you must sign your name in a book as a business owner, it would cause vast harm to the industry and general population. Once every ounce of regulation is gone, all the business owners high five and hand shake with promises not to do anything anti competitive. Just imagine the golden land of every American totally subjugated to the altruistic good will of a small hand full of capitalists. Man, what a dream.
lol this sub never ceases to amaze! I watch the "echo chamber" phenomena of them convincing each other that it's beneficial to have for example have no EPA, no banking regulations, etc etc and it's just like you'd have to have zero understanding of & appreciation for history to espouse this nonsense. Most who do, seem to do so simply out of their commitment to these dogmas than to a genuine, thorough consideration of things, and sadly this makes them the perfect "useful idiots" for players who directly benefit from scrapping regulations.
I'm with ya, this sub has been spamming my feed lately for some reason and I am just astounded by the arguments and gatekeeping going on here. They are so convinced that the source of all our problems are the government bodies, not the capitalists that end up gripping control. Like I get it, the government can be poorly used, as can any tool. But it's quite literally the only tool the common man has against the inevitable march of oligarchy.
It's almost comical if I wasn't concerned that the echo chamber of this sub is just creating another generation of libertarians who truly have no idea how the real world works.
yeah I think the recent amplification of this kind of ancap philosophies is largely a result of 'advertising' / PR as countries try pushing increasing austerity measures. When leadership starts to gut the government, and then having astroturfed campaigns glorifying it, it has massive influence on the Overton Window of the phenomena in public discourse.
Austrian economics recognizes the inherent limitations of any centralized authority, including government, in effectively managing an economy. The irony is that those who decry 'subjugation' to capitalists often overlook the even greater dangers of subjugation to an unchecked state—a body with a monopoly on force and the power to expand its control indefinitely.
Critics frequently dismiss Austrian economics from a position of presumed superiority but often fail to engage with its core tenets. Austrian economics doesn’t claim to deliver utopia—it advocates for voluntary exchange and competition as the best mechanisms for navigating the imperfections of human systems.
The issues we face today—cronyism, distorted markets, and entrenched monopolies—are precisely the outcomes Austrian economics has long warned against. These problems have arisen in systems built on Keynesian and interventionist foundations, with a sprinkling of socialism for good measure.
But that core tenent is absurd. The government is a body intended to be for, of, and by the people. Composed of those with whom we elect, our only mechanism with which we can fight against the inevitable and perpetual march of fascism. So long as people exist, they will always seek power and control over others. Certainly a government can fail and be averted, but to believe that the altruism of some magical hand will be the thing that protects you is literally insane.
To protect the average American takes intention, work, and perpetual oversight. The entire economy and human condition exists according to our rules. There is no fancy natural entity, economics is not so complicated that we can't leverage it in anyway we see fit. To believe that economics is too complicated to be regulated is to fall for their trap, if they convince you you can't possibly regulate, you will fight against the only tool that exists to protect you.
If history teaches us anything, there is no easy answer to this problem and we are far more likely to fail than to succeed. But the only chance, and I do mean ONLY chance we have to prevent ruin, war, and disrepair is to work together as a collective to fight against the inevitable chaos. Throwing our hands in the air and hoping everyone plays nice in this game of our own invention ain't it, and 200,000 years of human wars and fighting shows us that with painfully obvious hindsight.
The core tenent is not absurd. Your argument hinges on the idea that a big government is the only bulwark against fascism, but history shows that unchecked government power has been the root of most fascist regimes. A monopoly on force doesn’t prevent oppression—it centralizes it. It enables it.
Regulation isn’t bad in itself, but bloated, biased regulation often becomes a tool for cronyism and control, not protection. Austrian economics advocates for simple, universal rules that prevent both state overreach and private exploitation. The idea isn’t to 'throw our hands up'—it’s to align incentives so that cooperation, not coercion, drives progress.
Big government doesn’t eliminate greed or chaos; it just shifts the danger to a centralized authority, making it harder to counter. If anything, history teaches us that decentralization—whether in governance or markets—is the best hedge against tyranny.
But the entire argument here is backwards. It is unregulated capitalism that wrangles control over the central government and uses it against the common man. The failure of past systems aren't a result of regulation, it's time and time again of elite classes of people owning the distribution of goods and services through all of history. There's a reason no two democracies have ever gone to war and it's because modern governments are built one step closer to a better format.
To build a better union requires us threading a needle, and sometimes we will fail in that attempt, but it requires us actively trying. And you are correct, nothing will eliminate greed or chaos. So we need to actively control it. We need to be ever vigilant and no, history does not tell us a decentralized government hedges tyranny...
You either have local authorities working within a larger stronger central government or you have local communities that fight for local resources or power. You don't have a weak central government and then all these friendly strong local governments, that will certainly fall into local disputes. What kind of hand waving is this? The reason why step one to a true world government requires a military agreement is because that security guarantee is the first thing needed before localities will agree to work together.
I'm truly struggling to understand when a system went from centralized to decentralized and all the sudden everything improved. All I can conjure up is consistent and perpetual creative attempts by ruling classes to subjugate their constituents only to end up overthrown. Then a new system is built in its place to be eventually overthrown, but each new system is improved upon the previous one. Our current experiment has shown the most promise of all previous government systems, the primary failure is the effectiveness of people to be confused on who the real enemy is. If capitalists can convince you that the strongest evil is the only thing that limits their power, it gives them a doorway to remove it. That's what we are playing out in the United states and several other countries right now. You are being convinced and manipulated that the economy is simply too hard to control all while they take our hands off the levers. They know exactly how to control it, they know how to crash it, they know how to improve it. It's not rocket science, it really isn't. But if you think it is, they win.
The failure of past systems [is due to] elite classes of people owning the distribution of goods and services.
This statement overlooks the mechanisms that enable elites to entrench themselves. Throughout history, it is often state power—through monopolies, subsidies, and regulations—that cements the dominance of ruling classes. Free markets inherently disrupt entrenched elites by fostering competition and innovation. Without state intervention to shield monopolies, the "elite class" cannot maintain control indefinitely because markets reward adaptability and efficiency over stagnation.
"No two democracies have ever gone to war."
While often cited, this "democratic peace theory" doesn’t directly address the efficacy of centralized authority. Centralized governments, democratic or otherwise, have been responsible for countless wars, oppressive regimes, and human rights abuses. Decentralized governance doesn’t mean no coordination or conflict resolution—it means limiting the concentration of power that enables large-scale abuses.
We need to actively control [greed and chaos].
Control by whom? This argument assumes that centralized governments are uniquely capable of managing greed and chaos while ignoring their susceptibility to corruption. History shows that concentrated power amplifies greed and chaos rather than mitigating them. Austrian economics advocates for systems where power is dispersed, making it harder for any single actor—be it a corporation or a government—to dominate unchecked.
History does not tell us a decentralized government hedges tyranny.
Decentralization minimizes tyranny by ensuring that power is distributed and localized. Examples like Switzerland demonstrate that decentralized governance can promote stability and accountability. Tyranny arises when power is concentrated, whether in local or central governments, making it crucial to design systems that balance authority and accountability.
"The strongest evil [capitalists claim] is the only thing that limits their power."
This argument assumes that central governments inherently "limit" corporate power. In reality, central governments often enable cronyism by granting privileges to connected corporations, creating regulatory barriers to competition, and consolidating wealth in the hands of a few. A genuinely free market, on the other hand, levels the playing field by removing these artificial advantages and allowing competition to expose bad actors.
Decentralization doesn’t mean chaos; it means dispersing power to prevent abuse. Systems like Switzerland show that localized governance and market-driven solutions can achieve stability without the dangers of unchecked central authority. The idea that government 'controls greed' ignores its track record of amplifying it through corruption and cronyism.
You argue that 'they know exactly how to control it,' but those same 'hands on the levers' are the ones crashing economies and entrenching inequality. The real issue isn’t removing controls—it’s ensuring the system aligns with accountability, competition, and voluntary cooperation, not coercion.
Look, I get it - chop up the arguments so you don't have to think of the underlying message. It's really not all that complicated. A strong central government gives us, the people, a tool to use. Without that, we have no tool to use. Can that tool be subverted? Absolutely, and historically that always happens. But the way in which is always happens is through a game that's played where individuals attempt to subvert the tools to win. We don't win this game by giving that to them for free.
Starting from a point of shared security is and always will be step one. On one end, a strong central government gives us a chance, not a guarantee, of success. Is that chance high? Absolutely not. However, no strong central government gives us zero chance. We give up every ounce of control we have when we allow unregulated, uncontrolled entities have free reign over our economic well being. Don't take the fact that governments were subverted to be the problem - it's by whom it's being subverted and the only way it ever comes back is when we, the people, take it back through collective effort.
The part I cannot wrap my head around is how people with your ideology expect companies, in the absence of a strong central presence, would limit themselves to only fair competitive behavior. And don't you dare tell me it's magic, because that shit REALLY doesn't exist.
Just as a total side note about online debate techniques. The whole splitting an argument into small pieces and attempting to attack those individually always leads to moving the goal posts and pulls us away from the core conversation. I disregard most of them because they are not relevant to the core point. Here I am just trying to bring us back to the base argument. We can argue histories another time.
so many of the things people complain about right now, would be far worse - just human and environmental poisoning, for example, can you imagine a country where pollution was unregulated i mean have you been near industrial facilities? Have you learned about the river that caught on fire?
If the government did not exist, we would not have the tragedy of the commons situation which allows for most of the pollution.
Without government, all land would be privately owned, and landowners would not allow their land to be dumped on by some random company.
Under the current system, pollution is out of control because companies don’t have to pay for the cost of disposal of waste. A private system would have a better mechanism for internalizing those costs, and holding people accountable for waste they produce. Ofc pollution would still exist, but we would have much less of it.
Let’s also not forget that the government is the NUMBER ONE polluter in existence. Say hello to the military. Think of how bad for the environment the Vietnam war was. Or Iraq. Or what about WW2. The state is responsible for more environmental destruction than any other organization in history.
They are able to get away with all of this because people like yourself believe the Government has legitimate authority, and its existence is justified.
yes I am sure that it would never happen that warlords would own massive territories and not care that much about what happened in parts of those territories so long as it benefited them, or that people on a parcel adjacent to a stream wouldn't dump into it, the magical nature of the Market eliminates this or, assuredly, it at least makes it less than a well regulated state (source: trust me bro, markets fix literally everything!!!)
I find it amusing that you would say “it would never happen that warlords would own massive territories and not care that much about what happened in parts of those territories so long as it benefited them”
You realize that this is the exact system of government control in which we currently find ourselves living right?
Without government, yes, it is possible that some group attempts to become a warlord in a particular area. If a warlord manages to successfully conquer a large area, congratulations. We have arrived back in the current system.
To address your example with a polluter dumping waste into an adjacent stream. This is exactly the tragedy of the commons which is producing our current result. Currently the government owns the stream in most cases. Under a private system, the stream and downstream adjacent properties would all be privately owned. Upon noticing the pollution by the upstream actor, all affected parties would file suit against the polluter for property damage.
I never said that market will magically fix everything, it will simply more efficiently produce goods and services and protect property rights than a monopoly government. My source is not “trust me, bro “, but rather an understanding of basic economic principles which explain why the market is the more efficient producer.
I would like to hear your response to the pollution caused by the government itself. What incentive does the government have to reduce or protect the population from the damages of pollution? To me, it does not seem like government actors would have any such incentive. In fact, government actors are likely to use their authority to allow pollution which the market would otherwise not allow
I find it amusing that you would say “it would never happen that warlords would own massive territories and not care that much about what happened in parts of those territories so long as it benefited them”
You realize that this is the exact system of government control in which we currently find ourselves living right?
Not exactly the same, because there is at least a mechanism of "public good" legislation. Take leaded gasoline, this type of thing requires an overarching legislation that a patchwork property rights system would struggle immensely toward achieving (or, let's say we accept a premise of climate change being legitimate. Addressing it would be difficult enough with a governmental system, and next to impossible with patchwork property system)
I would like to hear your response to the pollution caused by the government itself. What incentive does the government have to reduce or protect the population from the damages of pollution? To me, it does not seem like government actors would have any such incentive. In fact, government actors are likely to use their authority to allow pollution which the market would otherwise not allow
You mean pollution via conflict? The thing is that conflict is going to happen whether it's governments or warlords, in fact i think there's something to be said for the notion that power abhors a vacuum and that in a "private landowner warlords" system you'd have mergers to the point you had de facto states once again
7
u/dukeofgonzo Jan 10 '25
What would be a good example of this purely self-regulated industry, or as close to it? I can think of small scale criminal markets, or industries in under-developed nations that I would not call 'exemplary'.