On the first part -

I think you are on to something. Something I think is probably important, is to make functional distinctions between different types of regulation.

Some rules of thumb I go by when trying to determine if a regulation is good or not are:

1) Can the proposed regulation be applied, at least in principle, universally. Enforcement needs to be uniform and equal, if a regulation is written as such that any enforcement by definition will be arbitrary then its no good. Or in other words, is it generally enforceable?

A hypothetical example would be a law or regulation that prohibited adultery and made it a criminal offense punishable by jail time. (technically in some places I think it is, in theory)

Going by general statistics I have seen, it is something more or less half of married people have committed. So if the anti-adultery provisions were enforced, that would be a massive chunk of the populace that would end up imprisoned. In reality, enforcing it universally would be impossible... in this instance its too common... so enforcement would then therefore be by definition arbitrary. In reality, the people jailed would tend to be poor minorities without legal resources or political ties.

So this is a hypothetical example of a bad law/regulation.

2) Is the wording of law/regulation specific enough that it can be applied only to the intended targets. Bureaucrats in charge of enforcement get good performance reviews for exercising their function. Whether they can exercise their function depends entirely on the written legal wording, the intent matters not at all. So care needs to be taken that the wording is such that the target is explicitly identified to prevent unaccountable govt asshats from abusing it to justify promotions and larger budgets.

-

There are plenty of other things that need to be considered of course, but those two I think are very important.


------------

Your second part raises an interesting point. I am not convinced that wealth = access to information at this point, I think the key differentiation is a simple desire to know. That being said, it is actually fairly immaterial to the discussion.

I think the core concept here is really this: how far should a greater authority (such as govt) intervene to "protect people from themselves", if at all - and if so, who get to be the "decider".

Now, I am sure there are plenty of instances we could agree on in regards to the fact that a corporate entity was spreading disinformation - such as the tobacco industry for example. But even with that, what about all the instances that we , or others, do not agree on? In the end, it all boils down to someones opinion carrying more weight than someone elses opinion... and someone having their life micromanaged by someone of greater authority.

So in the end... who should be responsible for someones life and well-being? The individual, or a greater authority? Obviously you know my stance on this. The definition of being free, is being free to make your own decisions regarding your life - even if someone else thinks its a wrong or incorrect decision.

Not to mention I hardly trust any greater authority to ever truly have my best interests in mind. History has shown that greater authorities typically dont, and even if they do - lack the understanding to successfully look out for said interests.

I think we are better off by simply having laws against knowingly making false claims about a product (fraud) and letting the most egregious cases play out in the legal system, as opposed to trying to create a use case for intrusive govt for preventing every conceivable instance where a person may remain willfully ignorant and do something dumb.

--------------

In regards to your third section....

I think we really need to quantify what "greater good" actually means.

See, when someone says "greater good" I tend to think of the two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. I think or Aztecs sacrificing someone to appease an angry god so the rest can have prosperity. (keeping in mind the intent not the objective reality of course, in which I severely doubt sacrificing people had any effect on anything other than the general level of fear among the populace and head count) Something like slavery also comes to mind, where the minority is forced into labor for "the greater good".

Now, I doubt this is what you are intentionally proposing. But I dont really know what you *are proposing.

You also mention progress... progress towards what, specifically? I find things like a general sense of "betterness" are not particularly good metrics to anchor policy making to.

As for privatized gains and socialized losses.... well obviously I find that completely abhorrent. But I think thats really a side-issue here, that is the type of thing that happens in a broken system. The question at hand, is *how to create a system that is not broken.

But if "greater good" is something to be used as a standard, then it needs to be clear and quantified in absolute terms.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)