[_heimdall]

I've always seen it as two different solutions depending on timing. Collective action, from governments usually, is most effective when we already broke something. Individuals are much better at avoiding problems before they occur, usually dependent on people being informed enough to know what they opting into.

I do wish more consumers would be hesitant to buy new products when they know little about how they're made or how they work. Ironically the more government we throw at preventing problems the more likely consumers are to skip past being skeptical and blindly trust that the big, regulated company must be doing what's best for us.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

> individuals are much better at avoiding problems before they occur

I think this is only really true for themselves, but even then short-term vs long-term biases affect decision making. Even when people know what the overall best choice is, they often just make the choice that makes them happy in the now. They will also tend to discount ill effects to others if those people are unseen and unheard.

> usually dependent on people being informed enough to know what they opting into

This is not a small qualifier.

[_heimdall]

> I think this is only really true for themselves, but even then short-term vs long-term biases affect decision making.

I can't think of a decent example of governments effectively avoiding a problem beforehand, curious if you have any for comparison though. I'm used to seeing governments either blindly ignorant of problems before they happen, or unwilling to act until something breaks and it becomes a talking point for elections.

> This is not a small qualifier.

We're in total agreement there. It shouldn't be a needed qualifier at all, but our education system is junk and we have collectively leaned into trusting experts rather than informed consent.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

> a decent example of governments effectively avoiding a problem beforehand

This would be hard because it would be counterfactual. Like if a rule/policy was put into place to prevent/avoid BAD_THING and then BAD_THING did not happen. It's not really news or remembered. In fact, the opposite can happen. The fact that BAD_THING is not happening becomes a reason for dismantling the original rule/policy because since there is no BAD-THING, we obviously don't need this rule. I think of recent moves in some states to re-enable child labor as a good example of this thinking.

Airline safety is another. Government intervened with rules that made planes really really safe. But since air travel became so safe (as a direct consequence of these rules), then operators/builders started chipping away at them (or circumventing them, or straight-up ignoring them) because they aren't needed because air travel is so safe.

So its tough to cite and example, because I'd need to point at something that didn't happen because of a rule, and that's hard to do.