>>You're addressing the wrong rationale. I'm saying that everything started out the way you suggest and none of those things survived.

I've already addressed this. There's no sense in me repeating myself for a fourth time.

>>Anything is possible. But when deciding how to organize our society, we don't have to give all possibilities equal credence.

Not just possible, but plausible. The dominant social forces supporting rent-seeking institutions that harm the general welfare is not an anomaly.

>>Yes, but I'm not talking about average people. I'm talking about expert participants in the system, ones with differing interests.

You're moving the goalposts. I was addressing your comment about the vast majority of people supporting some given regulation, and pointing out that public opinion in support of something doesn't indicate that it is a good policy.

>>When chefs and restaurateurs and doctors and public health officials and eaters of restaurant food and consumer advocates all say, "Yes, we think some basic mandatory health regulations are a good way to run things" then it's a solid sign the regulations are not some sort of one-sided, exploitative thing like the guild system.

No it isn't. Your argument gives no consideration to the conflicting financial and social interests that these participants can have. The guild system had numerous experts supporting it, and it was horrible for economy at large.

Like Hazlitt noted:

>>“Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics or medicine - the special pleading of selfish interests. While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.

It's not just possible, but highly plausible that the prevalence of regulatory controls limiting the freedom of Man is a result of the "special pleading of selfish interests".

>>Sure. A justice system that time and time again accepts reasonable regulatory burdens in pursuit of broader shared benefit.

The justice system has no choice but to accept regulatory burdens. It is a creature of legislation and has to enforce it. You're going off on a tangent rather than addressing my point about how public opinion is not a reliable barometer for the truth, because it is not based on deliberations by uninterested parties the same way the court system is.

>>Yes, exactly. The government is us. We the people.

We the people do not have the right to violate the rights of an individual through majority vote. Democratic will is not ethical in all its expressions.

>>"Roads are great, but they would be even better if everybody going the same way drove on the same side of the road," that's government.

Rules of use of public resources like roads is incomparable to impositions limiting the right of people to privately interact with other adults in whatever manner they wish.

>>This is something you are welcome to pursue in a private context, but not a public one.

What public one? I'm not using public resources. This is a private forum. There are numerous private cryptocurrency forums as well. You're mischaracterizing the context in which your desired regulations would be applied, to try to extend the power of government and the collective into all domains.

>But if you want to drive in the US, your options are narrower,

Who said anything about me wanting to "drive in the US" according to my rules. You're conflating the use of public roads with communication through private channels like Reddit.

Really what you're implying is that all private resources and private citizens within the United States are public property of the US government, no different than a public road. Your subtle conflation of private forums and interactions with public roads really reveals the philosophy of government control and ownership over everyone that's embedded in your ideology.