After a re-read, a question:

When is regulation a good thing?

Ryan's made the case time and again that he isn't Libertarian, and can't support much of their platform. That being understood, where does Ryan draw the line between good regulation and bad regulation?

Constitutional issues can't be the sole factor. There is no more of a call for the regulation or taxation of alcohol in the Constitution than there is for the taxation of anything else... yet it was the first thing Washington decided to attach a tax to (or, more accurately, to sign into law as such) and THAT tax caused an armed rebellion in PA.

If removing the regulations and taxes associated with petroleum products is a good thing for business and the economy, why wouldn't the same be true of deregulation in the realm of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and opium? Any of these could then be grown or produced by anyone with the land/space and sold on the free market, opening a huge new tax market to the Federal coffers.

Mind you, I'm not a Libertarian either... but I am the sort of conservative that feels that a specific level of government regulation and control is a good thing, especially when we are talking about something as vital and necessary to the well being of the nation as crude oil. An unregulated crude oil market is as dangerous to the US as an unregulated marijuana market... it might as well be completely legal to smoke the stuff, because controlling its distribution when anyone can produce it would be impossible.

Let me give you an example of MY sort of ideal "deregulation" scenario...

Gun control.

What if all regulations, limits and requirements for possessing, purchasing and keeping firearms were erased from the books. From sea to shining sea, anyone wanting to buy and own a pistol or long rifle or shotgun could do so simply by purchasing it at a store and paying the appropriate local and State sales tax. No limit on how many, how long, or how it works... if you can buy them, they are yours. Same with ammunition... buy as much as you can, if you want.

Now, this would mean that availability of firearms would undoubtedly go UP for criminals... but if that meant that instead of the 18% of households and persons that have guns now the number was more like 70% or higher... doesn't it make sense that the criminals are going to have a lot harder time intimidating their victims (or better yet, they're being intimidated by them)? Instead of a 1 in 6 chance of breaking into a home with guns, they might find an even money chance... and tell me THAT isn't the best sort of deterrent.

Now, my not being a Libertarian means I don't think the Second Amendment allows me to own and carry hand grenades, rocket launchers, and heavy machine guns to the store... but a legally purchased handgun in a bag or in a vehicle is a different story. Semi-autos in the house... that's fine. A closet full of bullets and rifles? Knock yourself out... as long as they are legally purchased and paid for, and you are not a convicted felon.

I think my brand of conservatism (and Ryan's) is that some government control is unavoidable... even beneficial... but it needs to be as little as possible, all the time. Is that still true for Ryan? If no curbs on crude pricing is good, then where is that line drawn?