Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace--in no. 2 it almost sounds like you're arguing for an explicit industrial policy from the state.
because without that, how would a regulator--or anyone else for that matter--be able to distinguish between types of consequences?
|
The first step would be to clearly define the intent of the proposed regulation. Then we can easily determine if the consequences are as intended. And I would say lawmakers have the obligation have clearly defining intent.
For example if the intent of regulating the number of hours a truck driver drives in a 24 hour period to xx number of hours is to reduce accidents on the road by 10%. We should be able to quantify the impact on accidents and also the impact on other things like the cost of good transported. If we find that with this regulation the frequency of accidents do in fact go down, but the severity goes up (perhaps because drivers are driving faster when actually on the road), the regulation should be revisited and compared to the original intent. In this case we find that the original intent is being accomplished but that fatal accidents have increased, perhaps another approach is in order rather than a more and more complicated patch work of regulations.
And perhaps unfortunately in the situation above what may really be happening is that people who have the ability to safely drive 18 hours in a 24 hour period are being dumbed down to those who can't.