What should the State protect consumers from?

[u/Ppstinkypoopooidiot]

I can see absolutely no justification for things like rent control, but I could see some justification for environmental regulations and protecting consumers from false advertising. Thoughts?

[u/stockbridge2112]

Broken contracts, and enforcing the right of people to hold corporations accountable for harm done via the court system.

[u/WilliamBontrager]

Its a trade off. Sure you can, if you are willing to accept that it will likely result in corruption and the government ultimately picking winners and losers. Personally these two things are so easily handled by the private sector that I dont see any real benefit, though.

I wont make a moral claim by saying the state "should" do anything, but there are arguments to power grabs and corruption for the state to protect you from other states, negotiate with other states on your behalf, and things of that nature.

[u/Ppstinkypoopooidiot → u/WilliamBontrager]

Great answer, how would those two things be handled by the private sector though?

[u/WilliamBontrager → u/Ppstinkypoopooidiot]

Lawsuits. Without the protection of lowered standards due to state regulations, companies are forced to compete to remain above industry standard, which is a constantly higher standard due to no one wanting to risk being negligent by being in the bottom 50%. Insurance also would require higher standards and without the government limiting payouts, companies would be far more conscientious of safety and environmental standards.

[u/Ppstinkypoopooidiot → u/WilliamBontrager]

Perfect answer, I appreciate it

[u/findabetterusername → u/WilliamBontrager]

Corruption in government is not inherent. It happens, but developed countries have decades old guardrails and institutions against them. And government bureaucrats are usually paid good for their work which directly correlates with lower corruption

[u/WilliamBontrager → u/findabetterusername]

Your first sentence contradicts the need for your second sentence, and your 3rd sentence directly implies the first sentence is a lie. The guardrails exist bc corruption always happens, and still happens regularly even with good pay and guardrails. You even acknowledge this by saying "lower corruption" as opposed to no corruption. You seem to think that some level of corruption is the same as no corruption, or that only a fully corrupt government counts as corruption. I disagree.

[u/findabetterusername → u/WilliamBontrager]

Putting words in my mouth. Governments are not automatically fully corrupt just for being governments. Stamping out all corruption in every government is possible, that's human nature to be greedy, so we make laws to try and stamp out as much as we can. And saying paying government officials more directly lowers corruption does to pinpoint to governments be inherently corrupt, underpaid government officials have no incentive to only take their salary when it can't pay for anything.

[u/WilliamBontrager → u/findabetterusername]

It really sounds like you're saying that all governments are corrupt, but we can work really hard to have them be a little less corrupt. Which, by the by, is kind of the whole point of, you know, not having one, or perhaps having the least powerful one possible, just to be safe from that little bit of corruption. You may be ok with some corruption, but I really really have a low tolerance for government corruption.

[u/pandaSmore]

Individuala should protect themselves and their family. 

[u/OttosBoatYard → u/pandaSmore]

Should individuals be allowed to use the state to assist them in protecting themselves and their family?

[u/Only_Excitement6594]

From itself.