| "regulations might make it harder for legitimate businesses to operate" We just have a very different view. I think regulations HELP businesses. For example, a well meaning company wants to make a cure for AIDS, a good regulation would require a study of length and size proportional to the volume and lethality of the disease. If the study is small, the regulation may allow small trials, and its first batch of patients be itself a trial for bigger batches. If there were no such regulations, the well-meaning company may have had a lot of success, but maybe they would have gone to market too fast and detected a side effect in a big trial instead of a small trial. Conversely, a terrible company might either choose to comply with the trials, and genuinely pivot to legitimately seeking a cure. Or avoid regulation altogether. Good regulation is not an equal cost imposed to both parties, and never the cost is higher to the good parties. Regulation is an incentive that when followed leads inevitably to the results desired. "That's why the law needs to be constantly updated and these loopholes closed. You'll never 100% close everything, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be constantly looking for improvements." Also not at all how I view the law. The law is written once, what is updated is the case law, the court rulings. Only when there is a change in technology other foundational changes, or very biig learning cycles (50 years), do we make another attempt at the same problem. You don't update a law every 3 years patching for loopholes playing a game of catch me if you can. |