[DangitBobby]

Practically every position is nuanced. We all have complex reasons for why we believe things.

Would you say that your attitude describes typical de-regulation as a policy? I have a hard time believing that it's a nuanced view if instead of trotting out specific examples that you care about and will specifically address, you say "de-regulation" so your constituency cheers. (Not you, specifically)...

While most political positions are at least coming from a place of truth, what I think of when I hear de-regulation is not "some regulation is overreach and should really be peeled back because it's not fair xyz, here's what's not fair", it's the "government has no business injecting itself between me and the money I could make by introducing untold externalities into a free market system."

Good regulation is hard to come by, I think, because we don't like to maintain things. We see a problem, let's make a rule. Now the rule is a problem. Let's remove the rule. How about you decide if the problem would exist in the same or another form without the rule and try to adjust it to match the new problems?

[humanrebar]

> ...government has no business injecting itself between me and the money I could make...

Prepare again for more nuance. My position wasn't about rights but about competency. And it's not niche for folks with libertarian leanings. Reagan famously said the nine most terrifying words are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" when criticizing government overreach.

I think part of the problem is that your mental model of problem solving presumes individual actors can have a lasting impact in complex and bureaucratic contexts.

It's not the same getting a committee of folks to think through problems the same way and to maintain the same rational approach over time. Keep in mind that these folk are biased (maybe unconsciously) in different ways, particularly in favor of competant lobbyists and potential corporate employers.

So it might be simpler to presume simple mechanisms, even doing nothing, might be the sanest and most democratic approach. Often problems, like lack of progressive pricing, should just be solved directly, through minimum incomes for instance.

[lenkite]

Are you truly proposing doing nothing for critical domains like flight safety and food safety ? How many thousands of people will need to die before you change your position ? Are you even aware of the history of the formation of agencies like the FAA and FDA ? The FAA was formed after the Grand Canyon mid-air collision at the end of a series of air accidents. The FDA was formed after a truck-load of food adulteration and deaths. Please read up on Wikipedia on the conditions that resulted in their creation. You might possibly be enlightened.