My usage of "economic regulation" in the context of this thread is pretty obvious. I'm not attempting to win a war of pedanticism with you over the definition of property rights.
The well accepted meaning of economic regulation is the use of regulation to compensate for market failures or centrally-planning economies (such as controlling money supply, subsidies, tax-breaks, import/export tariffs etc).
This is very different from the enforcement and defence of basic property/contract rights in courts as I was implying.
> The well accepted meaning of economic regulation is the use of regulation to compensate for market failures or centrally-planning economies (such as controlling money supply, subsidies, tax-breaks, import/export tariffs etc).
No, that's not the "well accepted definition of economic regulation". Those are two well-known, opposing philosophies of economy regulation.
But, even so, pretty central to both styles is how property rights are defined and enforced, which tends to be radically different between the "compensate for market failures" approach and the "centrally-planning economies" approach, illustrating, again, that you cannot divide "economic regulation" from "defining and enforcing property rights", even when you limit "economic regulation" to being either "compensate for market failures" or "centrally-planning economies".
The well accepted meaning of economic regulation is the use of regulation to compensate for market failures or centrally-planning economies (such as controlling money supply, subsidies, tax-breaks, import/export tariffs etc).
This is very different from the enforcement and defence of basic property/contract rights in courts as I was implying.