>It was probably sufficient to explain to that one guy why that was bad.

Greed doesn't listen to reason.

....nor regulators.

Greed listens to regulators that have teeth, because then the expected benefit of non-compliance is negative.

With a functional government, regulations enable the regulators to punish people who do these things.

Since we're talking about human remains in dog food, there's already likely a litany of felonies involved in turning a person into dog food. The regulators just like to regulate.

> there's already likely a litany of felonies involved in turning a person into dog food

yes, it's a felony because of regulation, made by... regulators

IANAL, but I'd guess it's a felony because of legislation, made by legislators.

Theft is also forbidden by regulation, but thankfully I don't have to file daily reports yet to Theft-Prevention Agency listing all the things that I handled but not stolen today.

Theft is not forbidden by regulation, it's forbidden by laws.

What's the difference? Laws are written by legislators, i.e., the elected representatives. Regulations are written by agencies created and empowered by laws to oversee certain parts of the government/governmental functions.

Regulators work largely by requiring reports because most agencies don't have criminal enforcement powers, and thus can act only on the basis of what is (or isn't) reported...

The real difference is that theft is punishable under natural law regardless of what any regulators or legislators might say. There can be no consistent system which would permit theft while prohibiting a proportional punishment for it. If theft is permitted then enforced restitution (recovery of the stolen property) and punishment (fines) must also be permitted, because these are ultimately the same action.

Laws and regulations which are not merely codification of natural law ultimately come down to attempting to create rules which apply to some people and not others. Unfortunately, legislators and regulators get away with this all to often through a combination of good propaganda and willingness to employ unjustified force to achieve their goals.

You don't, but banks and pawn shops do.

It's not there to dissuade you. It's there to provide a paper trail in case you do something stupid.

Or have one page with a single checkbox that says "I understand it is illegal to use human remains in dog food"

Regulation isn't about informing people what the rules are, it's about people proving they are following the rules.

It's both. The level of paperwork depends on the risk profile.

Sure. And there is no way a stack of paperwork can prove you are -not- using human remains.

Check the box that you understand and expect possible, random inspections.

Would you prefer that regulators would sanction bad behaviour and throw people in jail post-facto, make-up-the-rules-as-they-go-along instead?

Because that's the most palatable alternative.