[caseyross]

If we want progress, it's important to draw a distinction between the different effects of regulation.

Some regulation enforces the status quo, by helping entrenched interests use their power to crush potential innovators.

Other regulation restricts big players from abusing their dominance, and helps create a level playing field where innovation can succeed on its merits, no matter who's behind it.

It's not helpful to say that what we need is more rules, or less rules. What we need is rules that create a fair playing field.

[hackerlight]

Exactly what I arrived at, but I use the word better instead of fairer, since a regulation can do net harm without being unfair.

It annoys me when the right just wants to deregulate and the left just wants to regulate. It's ideological possession.

Implement more good regulations. Eliminate the ones that are doing more harm than good by adding too much red tape, or entrenching interests, or having too many unintended consequences.

[zuminator]

> Eliminate the ones that are doing more harm than good

Easier said than done. When people have fundamental differences of opinion on what's "good and bad" how can we mutually agree on which "bad" regulations to eliminate? Even worse, we might not even agree on who's doing the regulating.

For example, let's say me and my neighbors dislike Veltian immigrants, and we get our local homeowner's association to set up a restrictive covenant that nobody can sell or rent in the neighborhood to Veltians. Then along comes the government and strikes down our covenants as against the Constitution. To me, the meddlesome State is unjustly trying to regulate our freedom of association. But someone else might see our homeowner's association as acting as a regulatory body and preventing the Veltians from engaging in commerce with local residents.

>It annoys me when the right just wants to deregulate and the left just wants to regulate.

So, while that might be the case when it comes to offshore drilling and gun rights, it's arguably not the case when it comes to abortion and trans rights. It might be more accurate to say that everyone generally wants to minimize regulations that prevent them from achieving their personal, social and political goals. And conversely we want to enact regulations that facilitate our achieving our goals, and that furthermore prevent our ideological opponents from achieving their objectionable goals.

[hackerlight]

> When people have fundamental differences of opinion on what's "good and bad" how can we mutually agree on which "bad" regulations to eliminate?

Yes, some kind of moral system and political goals are presupposed if we want to start classifying things as good or bad, and not everyone will share these subjective goals. But every political project already has such presuppositions built in, this one being no different.

My point about ideological possession is that the purist "more regulation" and "less regulation" perspectives are logically inconsistent with the other principles that these people profess to hold. So I'm more pointing out the moral incoherence.

> it's arguably not the case when it comes to abortion and trans rights.

So this is interesting. The dichotomy breaks down (or even actually reverses) when it comes to regulation of social issues. But it seems to hold true when it comes to industry regulation, where the only exception to that is when social issues and industry collide. I can't remember a time when a far-left politician has proposed a bad industry regulation to be stripped (unless it clashed with the social sphere, e.g. discriminatory policies). I can't remember a time when a far-right politician has proposed a good industry regulation to be implemented (unless it clashed with the social sphere, e.g. social media). So I do believe there is ideological possession there. Have a read of the Texas GOP platform, it's a mix of anarcho-capitalism (remove all industry regulations and government bodies) and social conservatism.