I point out there are three armchair points-of-view that are possible here which are, in my experience, equally tiresome:
(1) All regulation is bad.
(2) All regulation is good.
(3) All regulation which is net positive is good.
(3) may be more complex, but it can be an armchair position because it excludes the political and moral questions of who wins, who loses, and who decides.
Importantly, (1) and (3) can also both be non-armchair points of view. It really depends what arguments are made in their defense. A libertarian, fully cognizant of the points made by the GP, can still believe (1) if his basis is moral grounds. Likewise (3), if it is defended on utilitarian grounds. Sure, if a libertarian argues (1) on an economic basis, it suggests a certain ignorance we could call 'armchair'.
But I would argue that we largely ignore moral arguments. So, even a libertarian arguing (1) from an economics standpoint may actually be doing so not because he believes it, but because he believes his audience will reject his argument from his core belief; and I would be hesitant to call him 'armchair' (even though he is annoying) just as I would be hesitant to call a utilitarian 'armchair' if he avoids the political questions. Both can be wrong without being wrong.
(1) All regulation is bad. (2) All regulation is good. (3) All regulation which is net positive is good.
(3) may be more complex, but it can be an armchair position because it excludes the political and moral questions of who wins, who loses, and who decides.
Importantly, (1) and (3) can also both be non-armchair points of view. It really depends what arguments are made in their defense. A libertarian, fully cognizant of the points made by the GP, can still believe (1) if his basis is moral grounds. Likewise (3), if it is defended on utilitarian grounds. Sure, if a libertarian argues (1) on an economic basis, it suggests a certain ignorance we could call 'armchair'.
But I would argue that we largely ignore moral arguments. So, even a libertarian arguing (1) from an economics standpoint may actually be doing so not because he believes it, but because he believes his audience will reject his argument from his core belief; and I would be hesitant to call him 'armchair' (even though he is annoying) just as I would be hesitant to call a utilitarian 'armchair' if he avoids the political questions. Both can be wrong without being wrong.