Hi dear @robertoueti, hi Piotr.
Just when I was about to start writing, I read this:
... can I ask everyone to avoid going to deeply into "politics" in your comments? :)
Now it is difficult.
I think that there is always that caste of public officials who seek the constant evolution of society by regulating and sensitizing the established norms. Thanks to these initiatives we have been able to advance as a community and as a society
In the sixteenth century people threw their waste through the windows of their homes. There was no sanitary control.
We had to go through epidemics, endemics and pests to realize that a simple regulation of the rules or the construction of aqueducts could have saved lives.
With our society more and more evolved, the regulations are increasingly "refined". It is always easier to make a criticism highlighting the negative aspects of a proposal, without making constructive statements.
But what is true is that the pros and cons of any approach that will affect a mass of people must be evaluated. So if there are committed jobs and productive commercial activities, I think that all that approach should be reformulated.
Thanks for your interesting article.
I found your comment ...
With our society more and more evolved, the regulations are increasingly "refined".
... very interesting.
I might rephrase it as follows:
If we want to evolve as a society, our regulations will need to be increasingly "refined".
That will be necessary, but very difficult to do.
To leave it to anarchy and chaos and deregulation to sort out is unwise and immature. It's fine for a teen to espouse such movements, but as one grows and matures, one realizes that a bit of regulation is necessary and beneficial.
The trick is, how to do so when it's so difficult? How to do so when leaders might be corrupted or manipulated?
Perhaps this responsibility is very large and important to be entrusted to people whose lack of human sensitivity prevents them from identifying the true needs of society.
Regulations are always made up of human beings who are the most flawed point in the system, but even that is not the main point, since creating a regulation for something that is already working properly has no benefit.
That's true. Most leaders become leaders not because they're qualified or competent, but simply because they thirst for power. Those are exactly the kind of people that should NOT be leading us.
A good leader is truly hard to find.
But there is no anarchy and chaos in deregulation. Want an example? Markets have no regulations. To open a clothing store does not need regulations. Countries that have less labor regulations are the ones that have more jobs.
Deregulation can easily and quickly lead to anarchy and chaos. Want an example? The Glass-Steagall act was repealed in 1999. Within 10 years, the US banks and the entire US economy were in chaos, and barely survived. The only reason the criminal banksters and corporate fraudsters survived is cuz they ran to the government for a bailout.
Just goes to show, the banksters and corporations are as evil as the government.
And logically the state went there and helped them, again.
If you deregulate a certain industry you do not help if some of your players go bankrupt, you let them go bankrupt.
Besides, the Dodd-Frank act is so much better in comparison of Glass-Steagall act.
https://mises.org/wire/why-not-replace-dodd-frank-glass-steagall
if you analyze the history you will see that all regulations were either made to secure the monopoly or benefit parts of one particular sector over another that there are no lobbies. You commented on the garbage being thrown out the window, but the cities did not have to regulate it, since people started doing it before the regulation. Who did it was the low-income people who had no other way of getting rid of the garbage except in this way.
Regulations coming from the government are totally clueless, since private regulations are much more efficient and less invasive in people's lives.
I totally agree with you.