Skippy 3 wrote:
So people should not be free to make their own mistakes?
By that logic, people should be free to borrow and lend without state interference. If a borrower in an unstable job can find a lender willing to lend him 12 times his salary, based on forward earnings from rent-a-room, the central banks shouldn't intervene, because it's important for people to be free to make their own mistakes.
I'm just saying that, outside the USA, people don't really accept that kind of philosophy as a guide to real-world rule-making
any more. We look at schoold shootings and economic implosions and go "wow, when a tiny minority of people make the same mistake, they can end or ruin the lives of massive numbers of people around them".
There's nothing wrong with allowing people to wreck their own lives. The problem comes when this sets off a chain reaction which wrecks many other peoples lives. People who had no input into the life-wrecking decision.
And the laissez-faire approach doesn't even account for the fact that the world is now industrialised and highly crowded. When Adam Smith and David Ricardo were plying their ideas, the world was overwhelmingly agricultural and lit by candles. When economic collapses occurred because people were free to make mistakes, unemployed workers could get agricultural work because machines weren't good enough yet to entirely replace human labour economically.