On 3/24/2013 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
The trouble with that standard is that almost any regulation will impact *something* that
is merely personal for *someone*. If the government regulates the ownership of machine
guns that impacts the behavior of a few people who like to shoot machine guns at targets.
So I would say there is a question of balance. If the regulation's *main* effect is to
restrict strictly personal freedoms it is a bad regulation, but some instances of personal
restriction may have to be tolerated if they are necessary to regulate things with much
greater public effects.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
On 3/24/2013 7:12 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
By the way, regulation only "protects us" from accessing effective
treatments if we are too poor. Quacks can always find some loophole to
At what point does the regulation become only a means to suppress
In my view, this happens when it regulates behaviours that only have
personal consequences or consequences within the sphere of a group of
consenting people. So 99% of regulation crosses that line.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.