Lord_Baltimore
Many of the scenarios you mentoned aren't even that big of a deal for many. I have walked in the rain many times and somehow I was still ok. You could argue that car culture has made us soft in some ways.
Nevertheless, if we reduced our emphasis on cars in society and the design of our cities to the point where cars were mainly used for those specific cases where cars truly are by far the best options (like ambulances) we would have more livable and walkable cities and ironically cities where it is nicer for those who really really want/need to drive since everyone and their mom wouldn't be driving because they aren't forced to drive to everything. Fewer people clogging the roads like my co-worker who would watch Netflix while she drove to work. Obviously she didn't have a passion for driving but was forced to because she lived in a sprawling metro with terrible transit options.
These issues just reveal deep problems we have as a society and the solution we have had so far of trying to avoid it at all costs only making it worse.
If you had less intervention with respect to privacy would there be more dynamic market-driven initiatives to fill the gaps? Would there be more incentive to develop technology that would be effective for privacy? I don't know.
Regulation is just hard because reality is complex and dynamic and regulation is often complex but not very dynamic.
2. Who do you think will consistently have better information than someone whose sole goal is to sell these tickets?
3. If they are consistently losing money scalping and not selling tickets they won't be a scalper much longer.
4. This is a dynamic process which can account for changing variables regarding supply and demand quickly as opposed to rules and regulations which do not.
5. If they only sell half the tickets at 4x then they could sell the last half at an extreme discount and make even more than double their investment! Do you think they would rather make more money or less?
"it has been balanced with more progressive policies."
That doesn't sound like unhindered capitalism.
Commentary from John Calvin on Luke 13:4 where Jesus comments on whether the 18 people killed by a falling tower were bad people because they suffered this fate:
"This passage is highly useful, were it for no other reason than that this disease is almost natural to us, to be too rigorous and severe in judging of others, and too much disposed to flatter our own faults. The consequence is, that we not only censure with excessive severity the offenses of our brethren; but whenever they meet with any calamity, we condemn them as wicked and reprobate persons. On the other hand, every man that is not sorely pressed by the hand of God slumbers at ease in the midst of his sins, as if God were favorable and reconciled to him. This involves a double fault; for when God chastises any one before our eyes, he warns us of his judgments, that each of us may examine himself, and consider what he deserves. If he spares us for a time, we are so far from having a right to take such kindness and forbearance as an opportunity for slumber, that we ought to regard it as an invitation to repentance."
And then you provide a competitor or startup another opportunity.
You are correct, and humans have been greedy, manipulative, and self-centered since the beginning of time. We often don't even see it in ourselves. I'm sure many of these people who contributed to his disillusionment probably thought they weren't too bad...especially when compared with some other person!
You seem to be stating this as an absolute truth.