I know you are talking to Alan here, but I feel the need to comment.
You are not correct on this.
I, myself, do not deal with regulations as a photographer, but my clients (architects and GCs mainly) do. Not a single one of them would agree with you. They could all site multiple projects that either did not even start or went extremely over budget, so the quality of the project suffered in other areas, due to regulations, some of which make no sense.
They would all say we are over-regulated and that regulations are costing businesses.
I take your point, but I didn't say it, a podcast on poverty said it (can't remember which one, I've been listening to a few in the car lately). It was concerned with what was holding back entrepreneurs around the globe and keeping them in poverty, and one big culprit was pointless regulation (like getting 13 permits to open a business from 13 different city departments, that kind of thing). The data they quoted simply said that the USA was the fourth best place in the world to start a business, at least from the regulatory point of view.
Discussing this using anecdotes is a waste of time. I'm not surprised to hear that businessmen complain about any overhead that does not go toward generating profit. That does not mean that regulation should not exist or that it does not serve a useful purpose.
And anyway, so what if they say that. I have never heard any businessman say that things were going well. Somehow, they never make enough money and things are always standing in their way. I stopped listening to that whine a long time ago. I bet plantation owners complained about how much their slaves were eating. On their own, without objective evidence, those complaints carry no weight whatsoever, imo.
I am in no doubt that some regulation is nonsensical. We've all seen or heard of examples, but we should not overplay that hand. I am also sure that some regulation is essential in a civilized society.
How do we define regulation anyway? Are pollution controls on cars an unnecessary regulation? A lot of people used to think so. Do regulations about building homes on flood plains interfere with real estate development? You bet, and it's a good thing that they do. Does it cost coal mining companies money to prevent their employees from getting black lung disease? I should hope so. I understand that some people are perfectly ok with making money at the expense of someone else's health, but that does not mean that a civilized society should let them do it. I understand that it may cost coal companies so much to protect their workers that it may cripple their ability to make a profit. All that means is that it's a business that should not exist.
The free market is fantastic at producing cheap mobile phones. And it has a terrible track record when it concerns effects their businesses might have on the external world and that's why we've evolved business regulation, because it was necessary.
As I said above, I am in no doubt that some jurisdictions invent all kinds of silly regulations as cash grabs and that those things are bad for everyone. So let's find THOSE and get rid of them. But let's not pretend that regulation is evil or bad for society, because there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
However, while we're cleaning up those dumb regulations that serve no purpose, it may be good for us to stop and figure out why those jurisdictions implemented them in the first place. Why did they need the money and why don't they have a more equitable way to raise it? I wonder how many regulations were lobbied by industry groups to protect their turf and make it difficult for competitors.
