Skip to main content

Regulation vs. Regulation

The double-speak never ceases. Politicians on both sides can't seem to avoid talking about regulation and capitalism. Democrats afraid of appearing too socialist claim to uphold free enterprise principles but allow for safety nets and programs that take the excesses out of business cycles of boom and bust. Republicans afraid of appearing pro-greed claim to want to reduce only the onerous regulations, and keep only the "common sense" statutes.

I've always disliked the very term "common sense". It usually just means "I'm too lazy to actually think through the principles involved."

So on the subject of "regulation" let me quote the immortal Mandy Patinkin of Princess Bride fame: "Jhoo keep useen that wohrd. I donna think eet means whahtchew think eet means."

The problem is that when Conservatives talk about regulation, they mean the rules of order we need to keep competition fair in business. The laws that make cheating on earnings statements illegal, for example.

Liberals, Progressives, and Nancy Pelosi style Democrats aren't talking about rules of order when they talk about regulating capitalism. For them, regulation rather refers to rules to prevent what they consider too much winning--to moderate the very competition itself, regardless of how neutral and fair the rules of order already are.

It's a distinction with a difference, so let us listen and read carefully to understand which meaning our politicians are referencing.



So on the subject of "regulation" let me quote the immortal Mandy Patinkin of Princess Bride fame

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the term “identity”

I didn't want to become one of those grad students who takes forever to find out what he wants to study, so I entered the Masters program at PITT with an idea what I wanted to do as a dissertation: national identity in the Ivory Coast. It sounds like a straightforward enough concept, but I encountered an article while I was taking a history course which looked at several case studies of the construction of racial, ethnic, and gender identities over a variety of geographical locations and historical periods that made me radically re-think the entire concept of identity . It's a concept that makes intuitive sense to most people, I would imagine. It means who you are, right? The layperson could also probably understand quite readily that there seem to be many different levels at which our "identity" can be determined or constrained. A black person may feel more of a racial component to identity than a white person, for example. My religious identity takes primacy over my

Abortion "Complexities" and Morality

It's just not that hard, folks.  Unless we're dealing with the context of a justified war, there's simply no moral defense for killing innocent humans if there are any other options, let alone for the convenience of the living.  And while both sides may exaggerate to make a point, only one side of the argument does insane logical backflips to hide the true and morally repugnant nature of the acts, their numbers, their consequences, and the assumptions underlying their "justifications". Ever since the leaked Alito draft hinting that Roe v. Wade was about to be overturned, pro-abortion activists have had their day.  I suppose I can understand a certain need to defend against what they perceive as a threat on their liberties and rights.  So now that they've had their time to externalize their fears and put out ad campaigns, and fake being handcuffed at protests in unlawful locations, let's stand back from the emotions and just examine the core moral argument

Historical Malpractice

  Heather Cox Richardson is a favorite among some of my leftist friends.  Her position as an academic offers imprimatur for her wanton partisanship and her acumen as a historical researcher helps her find the cherry-picked details she needs to cover a false narrative with a veneer of historicity.  I don't usually engage because her posts are long enough that it would take too much unpacking to deal with, but I wanted to take a crack at just a part of this one. Keep in mind that her schtick consist mostly of framing modern Republicans as morally corrupt and modern Democrats as knights in shining armor for all that is good and right, by peppering her argument with so much actual historical facts that you have the feeling of "context" so you don't notice the logical sleight of hand by which her narrative escapes reason and reality.  With that said, here's my summary, responding in snarky kind to her own partisan framing, but faithful to the content of her