Question: Are we better off with no regulation or running the risk of regulation that could be infected with strong biases and prejudices?
posted by darevan
My first instinct is to respond by saying that the general public would be better at regulating their own choices out of their good morals and the social pressure that neighbors put on each other. My overly optimistic outlook on people and their moral compass would tell me that it is highly unlike for people with more power to seize control or take advantage of the "little man." However, even with regulations that aim to stop these effects big businesses and Mr. Millionaire still strive for their own self-interests and gain. Time and time again tariffs or restrictions are passed to limit companies but because they are never held accountable they are able to push these things to the side simply by greasing the pockets of a few congressmen. Therefore my solution would be to say neither no regulation nor biased regulation should be considered a viable option, but instead, we as a general public need to scrutinize our governing bodies and force them to remove their own self-interests, or we as a public will remove them from office. As so eloquently said in the movie V for Vendetta "people should not be afraid of their government, government should be afraid of their people." Without the government fearing the dismissal or even removal from their jobs, they will never truly pass regulation and jurisdiction that is for the advantage of the general public but instead what advances their bank account. We as the people of the United States of America should not have to settle between choosing no regulation or biased regulation, we should have a government of people that respect and uphold their sworn duties.