Ideological Rigidity — The Image of Regulations

Read more about The Regulators movement  here: image credit.

The below quote — treating corporations as a conspiracy against the public — is a good example of ideological rigidity, to be found in all corners of political pretence. 

A valid criticism of free market mystique is contaminated by allegations, against regulatory regimes in civil societies, that are made false by egregrious overgeneralisation, omission of evidence of substantial concern for social issues in regulation, as well as the widespread incidence of uncalled-for political tutelage by outsiders in regulatory determinations.

Part of the problem: if you want to keep society protected against unreasonable regulation you must subject it to political competition, which, in turn, produces opportunities for special interests to garner favours at the expense of other special interests and the public at large.

Compared to a social order with strong and open political competition, both 

(i) strictly private arrangements, and 

(ii) a totalitarian state 

engender 

(i) no better, and even 

(ii) considerably less effective regulatory performance — with 

(ad i) complaints among particptants, say on industry level, in self-regulatory regimes about "regime uncertainty" and other forms of regulatory malfunction being no less intense than in more open regimes, and 

(ad ii) totalitarian states producing massive regulatory overkill, for instance by militarising the economy for the sake of total power and ideological radicalism.

The term “regulation” is framed from the viewpoint of corporations and other businesses. From their viewpoint, “regulations” are limitations on their freedom to do whatever they want no matter who it harms. But from the public’s viewpoint, a regulation is a protection against harm done by unscrupulous corporations seeking to maximize profit at the cost of harm to the public....

The source