Sallow
The Big Bad Wolf.
Okay so you're just going off Greenspan and inferring some "Friedman doctrine", whatever that's supposed to be. You actually need to understand Friedman's views; it's not enough to use Greenspan as a proxy (otherwise you end up with the kind of strawman arguments we're seeing here).
Oh so contract laws have stopped existing all of a sudden? If a firm engages in fraud and you try to take them to court, then what... no dice? Once again, he's not an anarchist. If you want to engage in semantics and label contract laws and whatnot as regulations, then his position can just easily be represented as "minimal regulations".
Not familiar with punitive damages? Also, how are regulations enforce? By taking the offending firm to court!
Why? Reagan, Bush I and II, and Greenspan, put into practice much of what Friedman was advocating. If you like the results..then understandably..you want that sort of stuff to continue.
Yeah see my problem is that I don't think you actually understand what Friedman was advocating.
So these corporations are so clever that they can figure ways around being prosecuted for fraud, but the regulations you throw at them are ironclad?
What regulation do you want covering them?
What regulation do you want? What reason do you have to suspect that they'll be a problem?
I don't know about Friedman, but I'm okay with requiring transactions like that to be made publicly known.
There should be mechanisms to prevent certain things from happening...like..I dunno..death by cave ins to miners. Which is why you have officials inspecting places of work.
If there's risk of serious accident or bodily harm, your employer is obliged to tell you. It's then up to you to decide, knowing the risks, whether you want to work there or not. Competition among employers will incentivise making safer work environments, not regulation.
Source: Cato Handbook for Congress: Occupational Safety and Health Administration
No "punative damages" are going to make up for the loss of life.
Except what happens if a firm infringes on a safety regulation and causes somebody to die? Do firms just respect regulations because they're regulations? Your incentive to follow a regulation is that there are consequences to breaking it. Specifically, you get taken to court and must pay out punitive damages!
When you start question whether I understand Friedman or not..and start throwing up charts from the obviously biased CATO institute..it gives me pause to think that you really don't understand economic principles yourself.
Then you go on about "employees" taking on the risks after they've been explained.
That's laughable.
And suggesting the only remedy to infringement on safety regulations is a court case is equally absurd.
The government can close down a business which does not follow the law. And that's how it should be.