Fair enough. Apologies for the emojis. I must admit I think something's far amiss in your statement but maybe it's your phrasing. It's awkard, at least, I think.
I'd say that LEGAL = Regulated. The sale and transfer of Ghost Guns, for example, are _not_ regulated because they are _not_ legal. Once you comply with regulations, you're legal. Illegal != Regulated. I understand you're trying to tie them because they're somehow enforced by government bodies but your conflating their purposes.
So I'm purposely severing the concepts to express that there are things that are illegal in a Free Market Economy that are not permitted regardless of either the victim or the perpetrator party's interest in business opportunities.
Regulations, OTOH, exist only because they affect one or both party's business interests by introducing an additional "neutral" parties as stakeholders. By that I mean, Regulations exist so that people like Janet Yellen and Jerome Powell - and Anthony Fauci in another field - can dip their beak in the pool.
In fact, without filling the pool, you're probably not doing business. Or you will work but in fear of an IRS audit. Or a no-know raid. It's not as though there's no precedent.
I'm conflating their purposes because they are both created and enforced by the existence of a government entity, which EGM states is the cause of corruption in the first place.
"there are things that are illegal in a Free Market Economy that are not permitted regardless of either the victim or the perpetrator party's interest in business opportunities."
What you seem to be saying is that things that are illegal are also not permitted. Explain to me the difference? Who's doing the "permitting?"
Can you point to a single way in which, for example, financial institutions are not regulated in a way that is not enforced by government force?
Is there a functional difference in the real world between "illegal" and "regulated" when the regulatory body is the same as the legislative body?
Who's going to stop me from doing business because they don't like the way I'm doing it if I've got sufficient power and resources to command my market in the first place?
Fair enough. Apologies for the emojis. I must admit I think something's far amiss in your statement but maybe it's your phrasing. It's awkard, at least, I think.
I'd say that LEGAL = Regulated. The sale and transfer of Ghost Guns, for example, are _not_ regulated because they are _not_ legal. Once you comply with regulations, you're legal. Illegal != Regulated. I understand you're trying to tie them because they're somehow enforced by government bodies but your conflating their purposes.
So I'm purposely severing the concepts to express that there are things that are illegal in a Free Market Economy that are not permitted regardless of either the victim or the perpetrator party's interest in business opportunities.
Regulations, OTOH, exist only because they affect one or both party's business interests by introducing an additional "neutral" parties as stakeholders. By that I mean, Regulations exist so that people like Janet Yellen and Jerome Powell - and Anthony Fauci in another field - can dip their beak in the pool.
In fact, without filling the pool, you're probably not doing business. Or you will work but in fear of an IRS audit. Or a no-know raid. It's not as though there's no precedent.
I'm conflating their purposes because they are both created and enforced by the existence of a government entity, which EGM states is the cause of corruption in the first place.
"there are things that are illegal in a Free Market Economy that are not permitted regardless of either the victim or the perpetrator party's interest in business opportunities."
What you seem to be saying is that things that are illegal are also not permitted. Explain to me the difference? Who's doing the "permitting?"
Can you point to a single way in which, for example, financial institutions are not regulated in a way that is not enforced by government force?
Is there a functional difference in the real world between "illegal" and "regulated" when the regulatory body is the same as the legislative body?
Who's going to stop me from doing business because they don't like the way I'm doing it if I've got sufficient power and resources to command my market in the first place?