»If some businesses get killed in the process, so be it.«
The problem with this attitude is that the rest of the world often doesn’t have these strict regulations and as result, businesses aren’t killed but just leaving the country.
The problem with this attitude is that the rest of the world often doesn’t have these strict regulations and as result, businesses aren’t killed but just leaving the country.
Option 1: “we won’t trade humans as slaves at all costs, even if it makes us less competitive in the global market - and we don’t hold that conviction about other things”
Option 2: “We won’t trade slaves - and if we find you trading slaves we will kill you. So we don’t have to worry about competing against slaves in the global marketplace.”
Option 3: “slavery is less efficient than having the same people as market participants - so I don’t consider giving up slaves to be less competitive”
Many more options, and mixtures of any or all of them.
For me and my experience, it’s reversed. Someone says some measured statement against a piece of regulation and someone shakes out of the woodwork mumbling something about some horrific thing like slavery.
Arguments of the structure:
“Aha, so you do like regulation, therefore you must like ALL regulation”
Or
“Oh, you oppose this piece of regulation, therefore you must want lord of the flies”
Or
“You only like regulation you like” (which is effectively a tautology)
People can oppose the burden of a body of regulation without opposing a government enforcing contract law.
And when someone says “regulation is bad” - a good faith interpretation of their statement is that they mean we have a large body of bad regulation, not that we should abolish the state and devolve into trading Monero for slaves.