[extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> There are actually non-government regulation ways of dealing with  
> fraudulent or harmful businesses.  A system of laws against fraud and
> various forms of aggression on the rights and well-being of others  
> would seem sufficient.

...?  Laws = government.  Regulations = government.  A body that
imposes laws and regulations upon others is a government, whether or
not it is called one.  (And regardless of its means of selection, in
particular regardless of whether it's elected; whether it co-exists
with something else that everyone calls "the government" and which does
the same; et cetera.  Consumer Reports and Underwriters' Laboratories
are examples of these, focussing on ensuring product quality: these
organizations can be and have been sued in the official government's
courts over this, but their stamps of approval are theirs - not the
official government's, nor anybody else's - to give or not, regardless
of the fact that witholding it might in practice completely prevent
someone from selling their wares.)

Now, if you're saying that it is possible for a government to regulate
against aggression and so forth without specifically regulating against
harmful business practices, that I'll agree with.  That would be a
matter of artfully drafting the laws to regulate behaviors without
explicitly mentioning (or even necessarily specifically anticipating)
them.  (Example: while there are no laws against file-sharing networks
per se, existing laws can be applied against organizations that
specifically advocate violating copyright, even if their primary means
happens to be employing certain technologies towards that end.  Of
course, the state of the copyright laws themselves is a different
matter, but if they are of net ill effect then they should be
overturned on their own demerits.)  But that's still a government of
some form that's doing the regulation.