[palmfacehn]

I don't think it is that extreme. The problem with the poster's assertion is that one individual's "free-market" as the poster defines it, is another's state capitalism.

If the above poster feels that there is a pragmatic need for regulation, fine. However the underlying principles of laissez-faire remain clearly defined. By appealing to a pragmatic need for regulation, the poster opens the door for centralized capture of the market. Long term this trend creates malign incentives.

Historically those who couldn't achieve monopoly conditions by appealing to consumers on the market, used the power of the state instead. So there's a mixed bag at best here. Others contend that the truly toxic monopolies are created exclusively by this process. You can take you pick, we're free to disagree here, but denying the hazards of the regulatory state would be unreasonable. Maybe that's an acceptable trade off and I think that's a fair discussion.

However, all of that is a far way off from an appeal to special circumstances, "because AI", "markets bad" and therefore neo-luddite doom. It isn't something we have observed with other tech innovations, nor is it grounded in axiomatic reasoning.

[mcv]

> denying the hazards of the regulatory state would be unreasonable.

The same goes for denying the hazards of unregulated corporations.

Completely unregulated corporations will, if given the chance, grow to become their own unaccountable states, which the first corporations, like the VOC, absolutely did.

The need for regulation is written in blood.

[palmfacehn]

You've chosen a poor example to illustrate your case.

The Dutch East India Company was a state granted monopoly. Obviously in this case, the regulations (state charter) empowered the abuses you feel so strongly about.

More generally, I'd caution against applying the present day norms around human rights to a distant historical case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(historical_analysi...