zlacker

You might say that any regulation is better than none, but bad regulation can be way more insidious and have unique dangers.

As a blunt analogy, let's say there's no law against murder right now. You and I both agree that we need a law against murder. But I have the ear of lawmakers, and I go sit down with them and tell them that you and I agree: We need a law against murder.

And then I help them write a law that makes murder illegal. Only, not all killing counts as murder, obviously. So if it's an accident, no murder. Self defense? No murder. And also if they are doing anything that "threatens" my business interests, not murder. Great, we've got a law that prevents unnecessary killing! And now I get to go ~~murder you~~ defend my business interests when you protest that the new law seems unfair.

>>diggin+(OP)
> then I help them write a law that makes murder illegal. Only, not all killing counts as murder, obviously. So if it's an accident, no murder. Self defense? No murder…now I get to go ~~murder you~~ defend my business interests

Isn’t this a classic case of some regulation being better than none? You could have murdered them at the start, too.

>>JumpCr+K3
Yes, but if I had murdered them at the start or even tried, maybe people would say, "Hey, this is murder and it's bad." Now I've got the force of law and authority on my side. You either allow me to do murders or you're the one causing problems. It may be quite a bit harder to change things and there will be irreparable damage before we do.