I’m not sure this answer is universal, but based on the one I’m unfortunately related to and have to talk to from time to time, libertarians would say that regulation is preventing other truck manufacturers from entering and competing in the market. If the market were “truly” free, then a competitor could come along and do better by selling their vehicles at a lower interest rate, taking all the business away from the interest-rate-abusing company. If you try to explain that this problem is not due to regulation but due to a lack of it, or how trusts happen and how monopolies work, they will fall back on the same set of naive circular reasoning. It doesn’t have to make sense or reflect reality, it just has to vaguely sound plausible and fit with what they want to be true.
That’s such obvious nonsense though lol he doesn’t have to buy this truck with the financing, there are other options already! It exists for market reasons.
he doesn’t have to buy this truck with the financing, there are other options already!
To which he would say there is no problem here then and that the buyer in OP is just a stupid consumer for getting bilked needlessly. He would say this reasoning is iron clad.
the amount of mental gymnastics and extrapolating they go through to explain something backwards from the conclusion “regulation is universally bad” is astounding. i knew a guy who said that seatbelt regulations actively make cars less safe. when i asked him to explain, he said that it prevents car manufacturers from inventing new, potentially more effective safety mechanisms that might get in the way of seatbelts. when i asked him if he knew of any better alternatives to seatbelts that were being hindered by seatbelt regulations, he basically said “idk, but i have faith that the free market will come up with something.”
I don’t understand, how does a libertarian think this will be better with no law at all?
I’m not sure this answer is universal, but based on the one I’m unfortunately related to and have to talk to from time to time, libertarians would say that regulation is preventing other truck manufacturers from entering and competing in the market. If the market were “truly” free, then a competitor could come along and do better by selling their vehicles at a lower interest rate, taking all the business away from the interest-rate-abusing company. If you try to explain that this problem is not due to regulation but due to a lack of it, or how trusts happen and how monopolies work, they will fall back on the same set of naive circular reasoning. It doesn’t have to make sense or reflect reality, it just has to vaguely sound plausible and fit with what they want to be true.
That’s such obvious nonsense though lol he doesn’t have to buy this truck with the financing, there are other options already! It exists for market reasons.
To which he would say there is no problem here then and that the buyer in OP is just a stupid consumer for getting bilked needlessly. He would say this reasoning is iron clad.
Aaaaaaa it is unreasonable to expect consumers to be 100% informed 100% of the time aaaaaaaaaaaa
caveat emptor! caveat emptor! caveat emptor! caveat emptor! caveat emptor!
the amount of mental gymnastics and extrapolating they go through to explain something backwards from the conclusion “regulation is universally bad” is astounding. i knew a guy who said that seatbelt regulations actively make cars less safe. when i asked him to explain, he said that it prevents car manufacturers from inventing new, potentially more effective safety mechanisms that might get in the way of seatbelts. when i asked him if he knew of any better alternatives to seatbelts that were being hindered by seatbelt regulations, he basically said “idk, but i have faith that the free market will come up with something.”