This smacks of the No True Scotsman problem - were all the regulations good, we wouldn't have this problem. And yet, governments are by and large incompetent, and most regulations they pass are bad. Almost all have significant unintended consequences. The ways to fix this are to minimize regulation at all levels and make regulation as hyper-local as possible.

Governments are not by and large incompetent, nor are they responsible for craft commonly-used electrical wiring standards. That is, in fact, written by a private organization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Electrical_Code

Local governments (the ones in charge of zoning) adopt this because it's easier to adopt an existing standard than to try and write one's own. Any homeowner who's discovered wonky wiring done by a previous handyman will appreciate the existence of standards like this.

So many people argue against regulations, not realizing how much absolute shit they'd be up against now without them. People being electrocuted by their homes used to be a routine thing, for example.

It's like how we have anti-vaxxers now that the memories of what the vaccines cure are so distant.

In what way? There are many regulations that are critical to a functioning society. Seeing a set of bad regulations and saying "that's it get rid of all of them" smacks of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

> There are many regulations that are critical to a functioning society.

I disagree vehemently, and believe there are very few that are necessary, aside from enforcing the harm principle and a few basic functions (i.e. diplomacy & military). Rather, most people use laws to attempt to enforce upon society their visions of how it ought to look and operate (i.e. drug bans, zoning). My motivation for getting rid of _most_ regulations is ideological (I can think of no ethical justification for the state to compel, by force, a home-owner to install an outlet in his wall), and I was attempting to illustrate a practical aspect of why; I don't believe there's much "bathwater" to be thrown out that wouldn't have been provided through other means.

Your motivation may be ideological but it is not in anyway practical.

If you look worldwide, places with minimal levels of regulation and enforcent tend to be more impoverished and almost no countries with a functioning government have the level of regulation that you advocate. The evidence strongly suggest that regulation tends to increase economic efficiency (at least up to a point).

Perhaps you can redirect your ideological distaste to find ways to help systematically determine which regulations are effective/necessary and expediently remove those that are harmful rather than advocating for a state of affairs that ignores reality.

Singapore and Hong Kong are two of the richest countries on Earth per capita, and have much less regulation than the US or Europe.

Hong Kong and Singapore certainly have zoning and land use regulation. They have consumer safety regulations. They have much more strict drug law penalties. Thereay be areas where they have less regulation but they are hardly the poster children for "minimal regulation" countries.

I am not at all saying that our level of regulation is perfect. There are lots of bad regulations that exist to protect industry profits or simply remove citizen choice out of fear.

But they have much more stringent enforcement.

Those poorer nations with less regulations don't enforce what they have. See, for instance, the post about massive sand theft in India; rampant corruption enables anyone to bypass the law amd cause harm to others. Passing more regulations won't fix that; said nations have tried that and failed.

I specifically meant HK and Singapore.

> Rather, most people use laws to attempt to enforce upon society their visions of how it ought to look and operate (i.e. drug bans, zoning). My motivation for getting rid of _most_ regulations is ideological

Do you not see that, were you to get your way, you'd be doing precisely the same, just with a different vision?

If I want 'drug bans and zoning', for example, I'll be cross that you've used (perhaps lack of) laws to force your own liberal vision upon me.

And that's essentially how we've (in much of the world) arrived at multi-party democracy.

Not passing a law does not force you to do anything. It still leaves individuals the freedom to make choices; i.e. I support removing drug restrictions but don't use them myself. Let everyone make his own choice. Your position is the restrictive one, the one where you seek to force me to live as you see fit; not passing a law allows everyone to live according to his own choices. On the other hand, if I transgress against your governmental club, policemen bust down my door at 3 AM and haul me off; there is no such occurrence without a law.

(to be clear 'my' position is just assumed for argument's sake)

It's still the laws or not that govern society, it still affects me. You'd like some minimal laws too, as you said, such as preventing people killing each other - that also is restricting other people, for the benefit of the others.

Absolutely, I believe in some very basic stuff, like what you described (enforcing the harm principle). But, someone's drug abuse (for instance) does not harm me, unless I have to pay for the rehab; a lack of zoning may lead to an ugly house, but the closest that comes to harm is failing to provide visual or aesthetic pleasure to me.

However, you claimed restricting one from killing another is for the benefit of the one. Not so, rather it is to prevent undue harm to another. Conceptually, it is the difference between you stealing $100 and me giving you the same.

I also believe in remediating externalities, i.e. no one gets to dump toxic sludge in the river. I simply don't see an ethical case for laws that tell a landowner what he can and can't do with the property.

> However, you claimed restricting one from killing another is for the benefit of the one. Not so, rather it is to prevent undue harm to another.

I'm not really sure what you mean, I think we're in agreement here. I said:

> preventing people killing each other - that also is restricting other people, for the benefit of the others.

--

I'm not arguing that your views are wrong or unethical, just that they can't stand on natural superiority, it's all up for debate, it all impacts others.

(Drug use absolutely impacts others beyond hypotherical tax paying for rehabilitation - there's potential for anti-social behaviour, littering, and smell/noise/etc. in public spaces. I'm not making a judgement on whether that should or shouldn't be available for individual choice, I just don't see that it's ultra vires for a legislative body to rule on it.)