You definitely misunderstood the conclusion of my last argument. Stating that government should do nothing besides its essential functions does not say that government should do nothing. It means that government should focus on the central duty for which it exists: protecting its citizens, of which business practice regulation is an important part.
In your argument, you state that citizens can see for themselves (and cease to support) businesses with practices harmful to consumers. Then you cite banks which had exploitive practices prior to the 2008 economic collapse. According to your argument, no one should have continued to patronize those banks. But this was not the case. They had many clients despite behind-the-scenes loophole abuses. Unethical business practices are not always at surface level. Often they are in the underpinnings of a business, and their harmful effects are not seen until years later.
This flagrant disregard for the spirit of the law by finding ways to work around the letter of the law shows clearly how much humanity needs regulation. In this case, the regulation needs to be reworked so that the harmful loopholes they found no longer exist, and any future similar practices can therefore be punished. This is why regulation reform is so critical.
This process depends upon the active involvement of the American people in the election process: to put in office candidates that will enact their wishes in congress. They must also communicate with their representatives about what reforms they would like to see brought to pass. When voters with practical perspectives share their opinions with voting representatives, they are more likely to ensure that these representatives understand the issues and know how best to represent their constituents.
In response to your point about the government bailout doing more harm than good to the economy, I agree. But you took this government mistake and pointed to it as epitomizing the problem with federal regulations. However, bailouts are not regulations. Saying that the two are the same is ridiculous. It’s akin to saying, “A father’s decision to buy his daughter a new car to replace one she wrecked is a house rule equivalent to the one that states she must not lie to her brother.” That is faulty logic and not pertinent to our discussion.
To conclude, just because government regulation is not perfect does not mean that it is unnecessary. Citizens can act in government to help change policies and regulations that are ineffective. But overall, regulation of the economic practices in the United States exists for good reason, and it would be foolish to say otherwise.
|