“A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” - Antoine de Saint-Exupry

Regulation. It’s like water. Not enough and you die of thirst. Too much and you drown. As a conservative, I naturally fall under the “less is more” umbrella but that doesn’t mean I think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Okay, I realize people are going to disagree with me on this but hear me out on this one.

A total absence of regulation is effectively the same as a total absence of government. My fellow conservatives and I all agree that smaller government is a good thing. We also mostly agree that complete anarchy is a bad thing. Even the true believer Libertarian whack jobs don’t believe in anarchy. I apply the same logic to regulation.

The government sets a single national currency. No sane person argues against money. The government enforces contracts as legally binding documents. No sane person argues against contractual obligations. The government enforces truth in advertising laws. No sane person argues that companies should be allowed to lie to consumers. Government has to regulate some level of the economy. It’s a fundamental part of what government is.

Here’s my thing: Don’t lie. Don’t cheat. Don’t steal. Pull your own weight. Don’t hurt others. Anything else you want to do is your own business. When government taxes me to build roads, I’m pulling my own weight. When government taxes me to paint an overpass bright purple and light it so its brighter than the friggin sun, they’re stealing my hard earned money. When the government tells me I can’t do business, it hurts me. When the government tells me I can’t cheat people out of their life savings, they’re doing us all a favor.

I’ll take building codes as an example where regulation is a good thing. I’ve worked in construction in the past and I can tell you that in some places the permitting and inspection requirements can be downright draconian – especially when combined with strict deed requirements and an active civic association – but those regulations are there for a reason. Sure, it would be cheaper for a builder to be able to cut the city out of the loop and not have to delay projects while waiting for inspectors. Sure, most builders would construct quality buildings without such legal requirements. The problem is that if these regulations didn’t exist, no one could ever really tell the difference between a good house and a bad house.

As someone who is worked in the industry, allow me to explain this to those who don’t. There is a division of skilled labor amongst home builders. There are professional engineers, foundation companies, framers, roofers, electricians, plumbers, sheetrockers, air conditioning technicians, painters, and a dozen other highly specialized, highly skilled professions that go into building a building. No one person, no matter how skilled, can do every job himself. Someone who lays concrete for a living does not know how to frame a house. People who frame houses do not know how to lay a proper roof. Roofers won’t ever try to put in a breaker box. The average electrician couldn’t sweat a joint to save his life. I’m sure you get the point.

The inspector is yet another of these highly trained niche workers. Yet even the most highly skilled inspector can’t see through walls after a home is built. By the time a home is ready to go on the market, no part of the structure of that home is visible. Its been covered by carpet and sheetrock. Siding has been installed. The cracks have been sanded down and painted over. That’s why, despite how much easier it would be to just go right ahead and finish a house, every so often work has to come to a crashing halt and wait for the city to send a guy over and check things out. You can’t hide things from an inspector. If you sheetrock over a section of wiring before he’s seen it, you will be forced to rip the wall out and show it to him. Yeah, it’s a pain in the neck, but that’s how you know when you buy a house that loose wire isn’t going to set the whole thing ablaze.

If we were allowed to get away with stuff like that, people would buy junk homes. And yeah, they could sue the company later, but that’s assuming the company is still in business and the home owner isn’t dead from a gas leak explosion. We need some regulation. Regulation to stop blatantly abusive practices is a good thing. Regulation on what color to paint my house? Bad. Regulations on how tall my house can be? Bad. Regulations on the types of blinds I can have in my front windows? Bad. Regulations on the type and number of rooms I can have in my home? Bad. Regulations on what I can do on my own property? Bad. Regulations stopping the home builder from handing me a deathtrap? Good.

Society would be far better off with less regulation than it is with excessive regulation. So long as you’re not hurting anyone then what you do should be entirely up to you. Less regulation increases competition. Fair competition leads has a multiplicative effect on worker productivity, efficiency, and a positive impact on pricing. Predatory competition screws over society. No regulations on business is no better than no regulation on the street. I don’t support communities being exploited by gangs and I don’t support communities being exploited by unscrupulous businesses. If you provide a legitimate thing to the market, you deserve to be allowed to ply your trade without undue interference from the government. If you’re hawking snake oil, you deserve to go to prison.

Here’s my philosophy on regulation:

1) No one should ever have the right to harm another person.
2) No bill should become law that causes undue harm to legitimate practices.
3) No bill should become law if it cannot be proven that the bill would help to stop abusive practices.
4) Where the above principles conflict, compromises can and should be made.

In other words, we should stop abusive practices, unless by stopping those practices we destroy legitimate practices as well, in which case we should try to find a fair and workable method to destroy the one without destroying the other. Sometimes its easy. Usually its not. Sometimes the only real answer is finding an acceptable compromise between two very important values we all share. Everyone knows cigarettes will kill you. Everyone has the right to do what they want to with their own body. We slap a warning on the pack and let people kill themselves.

Maybe next time you sign off on a home loan you’ll see a label at the top of the contract: “Attorney General’s Warning: Zero principle adjustable rate mortgages cause repossession, bankruptcy, and may complicate your credit report.”