and that preemptive strategy has just been doing so well for us, hasn't it. the nanny-state mentality has created more problems than it has solved and helped to drive american industry into the toilet. when given the chance, governmental bureaucracy will always take things too far and that's just what all these laws designed to protect us from ourselves are a sign of. at some point the people must take their protection into their own hands and quit clutching onto the apron strings of an over-protective state, over-reaching, over-controlling state.
This is entirely opinion without evidence and to no one's surprise I completely disagree. Produce for me some examples of this "over-reaching" and "over-controlling" state destroying our nations economy... Can you?
It's amazing how anyone can blame the government, for example, for causing the 08 recession. Fannie, Freddie? They held less than 1/5th of the subprimes that went bad and actually were subject to harsher regulations than the private sector - Wall Street - that caused this mess by making too many bad bets(which could have been avoided if the government prevented them from making said bets in the first place I.E. regulation).
Think of it like this: You're walking your dog along the edge of a cliff and he's pretty energetic so he runs between you and the cliff as you walk along it - stopping only when his leash stops him. You want him to run all over, because you want him to use his energy, but you dont want him to fall off the cliff - so you walk 8 feet from the edge and your leash is 6 feet long so your dog is pretty safe to do as he pleases within the 6 feet you allow.
Now, the government(you) regulates(the leash) companies(dog) in a manner that allows maximum economic growth(dog using his energy) while also seeking to prevent economic disaster (the dog falls off the cliff).
The deregulation argument is basically the equivilent of lengthening the leash or removing it entirely with faith that the dog(any dog) is smart enough to not run off the edge.
Do you trust that the dog is smart enough not to run right off the edge? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the dog. Should you trust profiteers not to risk too much, ultimately causing a global economic collapse? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the person. Considering we all know the world is imperfect, wouldn't you rather be sure that everyone is following the same rules based on what we as a society deem to be fair?
Ron Paul used the same argument, "if heroin was legal how many people here would use it? We dont need some law telling us what to do!"... What about the people who will use it? What are the costs and benefits to society for allowing this behavior? Does Heroin use cost government and by extension does it cost the taxpayer? Sure, the people using it now would do it whether or not it was illegal... But what about the message that society sends by saying it's OK to do? Would you not possibly expect more people to try it over a long period of time of legalization and acceptance? I'm sure most of us agree that Heroin should remain illegal(IDK honestly, weed site and all..) so why should it be any different with predatory lending practices, excessive risk taking, etc. that end up harming the regular Joe?
