Reduction by Regulation

Are there any fundamentally objective regulations that should always be in place?

What is an effective limit for regulations on any given circumstances?

If there were objective regulations, then they would be relative to an action that all individuals “should” or “should not” take. By definition, a regulation is basically a rule outlining a specified action that should or shouldn’t be taken. As in my previous posts; “Served, but not Deserved” and “Titled but not Entitled” I distinguished that the concept of something that “should” be done, is subjective, unless outlined in context. There seems to be no actions that “should” be done, which are genrally objective, since there is no universally definitive agreement fundamental to general existence. Relative to existence, an individual always has the potential to disagree on a preference of intended goal, as the resulting effect of that action; which is the factor in question for whether it “should” be taken. An agreed upon intended goal is required, for an action to be objective in determining whether it should be taken. This concept carries over to the application of regulations, considering regulations describe that which “should” be done.

A common agreed upon intended accomplishment, which seems to be reasonable for a functional society, and for a common preference, might be; to allow the maximum enjoyment of all individuals. If this is taken as the context, then there can be an objective action to be taken in any circumstances, in order to attempt to accomplish the intended goal. Granted, it can be very difficult to determine the action which should be taken in order to accomplish this result, but this can be a contextual goal to base best estimates off of, for concepts such as Deserving, Entitlement, or regulations.

So what are effective regulations, to attempt to achieve this hypothetical goal for society?

In general, it seems regulations restrict people from taking an action which reduces the enjoyment for others. But to be effective for this goal, the regulation should restrict only the specific action which reduces others enjoyment. A “blanket-barricading” regulation is generalised to prevent everyone from performing an action which only has the [potential] to be used to take a further action that is negative (in the context). In this case, the generalized restriction prevents the enjoyment for some people, even though they would not have taken the consecutive action which is negative.

This seems to be a growing trend in society, of creating blanket-barricading regulations. For eg. if someone drowns in a quarry, in a public conservation area, the typical reaction seems to be to then make a regulation that nobody is allowed to swim in that quarry any longer. The idealism is to prevent future people from drowning (reducing their enjoyment & their families’), but the regulation restricts the enjoyment for all those who would take that initial action of swimming, but not take the consecutive negative action of drowning. Instead of a regulation which restricts enjoyment for others, perhaps the regulation should be focused on the problem of drowning. This is likely difficult to do, other than perhaps putting up signs, warning people of the danger. But, at least it would not be counter-productive in restricting alternate enjoyment. Freedom should be a fairly common preference for enjoyment, and therefore a component of the contextual intended goal of society.

If blanket barricade regulations are put in place, restricting freedom of particular actions, the individuals restricted from that action, are additionally prevented from learning skills and concepts related to that action. When learning these skills and concepts is prevented, the person is then unable to transfer that knowledge or those abilities to alternate situations. They are then more likely to fail or be harmed (reducing their enjoyment), in a future scenario involving relatable concepts, since they don’t have the applicable skills or knowledge.

For eg. if a regulation is put into place to require crossing guards to always stop traffic for children crossing the street, and the children must cross at that spot, the children may never learn the concept of giving cars the right of way, of the skills to judge when it's safe to cross. At another time, when there is no crossing guard, a child might just cross a road right in front of traffic (assuming this is normal), without the learned skills of independently awarefully crossing the street (I’ve witnessed this happen, at a crosswalk in front of my house...).

It seems logical that regulations should be heeded in the effect of their restrictions. If it’s a regulation which blankets generalized circumstances, only on the potential of a consecutive negative action being taken, then the side effect causing the restriction of the freedom of others, is counter-productive. Additionally, over-regulations are ineffective in the prospect that they prevent valuable learned skills and knowledge. Perhaps, in today’s society, the best implementation in the context of allowing enjoyment, should be regulation reduction.