Earlier quoted context omitted.
The entire purpose of business regulation is to protect the people. People choosing to give up this protection is the irony. For example. Tobacco kills people. Government looks out for the interests of the people and regulates Big Tobacco. So Big Tobacco moves to a place where it is unregulated and free to distribute tobacco even to minors. People "IRONICALLY" against their own self interest follow the company becaus…
I suppose you would have the government approve every individual action you take to ensure it isn’t against the interest of “the people”. I’m just glad there’s still enough voters who don’t think like you, to be honest. That concerns me a lot more than how dangerous the products in the store are.
Make no mistake. The purpose of business regulation is to protect the people. This is absolutely true.
Execution of such regulations has unintended consequences though.
Regulating business harms profits which harms jobs and in turn harms people who could have had the jobs. Harmed profits also harms the owners of the businesses who are also people.
So basically there's a feedback loop here. You make the law for the purpose of protecting people but you are also harming people at the same time.
I'm a moderate or undecided because this loop presents a practical and moral dilemma. There's a balance somewhere but no truly one knows where and the complexities of society make it so that civilization will never arrive at this balance. Society tends to oscillate wildly around this equilibrium point migrating between the two extremes of pro business and pro "the people."
Tobacco is just one example. A lot of people think of tobacco as cookies, so if that's too tame for you then replace that example with Big Pharma and the opioid crisis or The dumping of toxic waste into Toms River by Big Chemical.