I assume it was to make me laugh, which it did. Nobody actually thinks "regulations are bad." The point that is being humorously made is that these things have significant trade-offs and you're pretending not to get it. And I have to compliment you on playing the straight man in the exchange, it wouldn't have been nearly so funny without your participation!
We saw the same thing in early LAN engineering when Ethernet fought it out with Token Ring. Oversimplifying a bit: Token Ring provided a highly regulated guaranteed delivery protocol with lots of complexity and overhead and Ethernet just spurted packets out onto the wire and let the nodes figure out collisions. Can you guess which one is considerably more performant and easier to implement? Even so, Ethernet still has plenty of rules and complexity, just considerably less than Token Ring.
> Literally half the political commentary in the nation talks like all regs are bad, not just a matter of trade offs.
Don't be so condescending and you might notice that commenters here are quite a bit above that level.
Since you mention, "Yes" could be a nuclear tier rhetorical slogan. "What do you stand for?" "Yes!" Who can't get behind that positive can do attitude!? I don't know what a regan is, but I'm happy to help him, her, or it out at my standard consulting rate.
I'd summarize it like so: while it is theoretically possible fore regulation to be net-positive, it is vastly net-negative on average and especially cumulative. And we aren't able or willing to figure out which ones are positive/negative beforehand, so zero new regulation would be the optimal strategy.
I think for the sake of the Science we should try random regulation too. Maybe one state could use USDA regulations and another could use whatever ChatGPT comes up with and we A/B test.
Plus, we need to hold all other variables equal, so we can be sure what the causation is. And best of all we should use the gold standard, randomized controlled trials. With this method, some states/countries get randomly selected to implement a policy, but they don't even know about it, and to make it double blind, we also don't know about it until after the trial.
What is the purpose of those comments?