Too often, bad regulation is only recognized as such in hindsight. I'm sure the lawmakers who crafted that which you now denounce as "bad regulation" were equally convinced that what they were doing was a "step in the right direction".
The same can be said for deregulation. It's fascinating how effectively right-wingers have co-opted the idea of "unintended consequences" as if it only applies to only the decisions that they oppose. Do you not acknowledge that there were unintended consequences of deregulating the national banks to permit mergers between banks and all different sorts of financial institutions, for instance?
I'll take my chances with a reasonably informed person with good intentions any day of the week, even if they fail on occasion. This idea that good intentions is somehow a bad thing has taken hold, and it is pretty silly. When there are unintended consequences, who is more likely to try and fix the unexpected problem-- the person with good intentions, or the person who doesn't give a damn?
to post a reply:
login - or -
register