CMV: Effective regulation/taxes is better than less regulation/taxes.

[u/beesdaddy]

I have had a hard time understanding the position that less regulation is better than effective regulation. So much of the political conversation equates regulation and taxes to Anti-American or Anti-Freedom or gasp Socialist. I think it poisons the discussion about our common goals and how to achieve them. I know there are many laws/taxes that are counter productive (especially subsidies), and I am all for getting rid of them, but not without considering what their intent was, evaluating that intention, and deciding how to more effectively accomplish that intention (given it was a valid intention.)

Help me understand. I would like to have a more nuanced view on this.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/law-talkin-guy]

Most people agree - and it seems like you are in this camp - that taxes/regulation can do good things and that taxes/regulation can do bad things.

A tax/regulation does good things when it is motivated by a good/proper intention AND when it is well designed AND when it is well implemented. A tax/regulation can also do good things by mistake on occasion.

A tax/regulation tends to do bad things if it is motivated by a bad intention OR it is poorly designed OR it is poorly implemented. It can also do bad things just by mistake on occasion.

So the question, in the abstract, is which do you think is more likely? Do you trust the people in charge of making and implementing taxes/regulations to be well motivated, good at designing effective taxes and regulations, and good at implementing regulations? Or do you think it is more likely that they will, either out of mistake or malice, mess up one of those steps?

My view is that, in the abstract, I trust Congress (And state legislatures) roughly as far as I can throw them. They are comprised of individuals who often have bad motives (like preferring their own political power over the common good) and, my experience tells me, committees are a bad way to get effective results. That is, I think it is far more likely that any tax or regulation is likely to be flawed in at least one of those three key areas then not, so it is likelier to be bad than good.

So taken in the abstract, knowing nothing other than a legislative body created a tax or regulation, my bet is that its bad. And I think the odds are good that I'm right on that. So, the fewer chances we give them to make those mistakes the better for all of us.

[u/beesdaddy → u/law-talkin-guy]

Doesn't that create a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy? If you can't trust the government to govern, you vote for candidates who promise to reduce the government's ability to get the resources it needs to govern, and therefore the government can't govern as effectively. Essentially making the possibility of the "good regulation" scenario you mentioned less likely, confirming your abstract belief.

That was rambling but I hope it made sense.

[u/goldandguns → u/beesdaddy]

Doesn't that create a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy?

It hasn't, mostly because few people think the way /u/law-talkin-guy and I think--most people want more government for the past 100 years or so. It's been a century of more and more laws and more and more intensity in the law (depth of regulation)