Yeah. A lot of flamewars have happened: "regulation bad!" vs "no, regulation good!".
But in reality, good regulation is good, and bad regulation is bad.
It sounds silly written out because it's a tautology, but if more people internalized it we could have much more productive conversations. Instead of going back and forth on whether regulation is good or bad, we should try to figure out which regulations are good and which are bad, and then try to get rid of the bad ones and pass more of the good ones.
I’d argue that the underlying system that makes the regulation in US is broken. So you aren’t going to end up with many good regulations without changing the system. Which looks nigh impossible until some black swan event.
>But in reality, good regulation is good, and bad regulation is bad.
No one brick in the road to hell is bad. But you can definitely pave a road to hell with the accumulation of "positive" changes. People tend to define positive over too short a timeline or too narrowly.
No one square meter of nature is bad. But you can definitely doom people to horribly die because there is a natural swamp between them and the hospital. People tend to define 'natural' too narrowly, forgetting that 'things that are natural' includes cocaine, tapeworms, rape, birth defects, the Plague and cancer
But in reality, good regulation is good, and bad regulation is bad.
It sounds silly written out because it's a tautology, but if more people internalized it we could have much more productive conversations. Instead of going back and forth on whether regulation is good or bad, we should try to figure out which regulations are good and which are bad, and then try to get rid of the bad ones and pass more of the good ones.