Maybe, but sometimes regulations reflect a historical context that's no longer valid.
As technology changes, and as cultural mores evolve the circumstances which prompted a regulation may no longer be valid.
That isn't to say that the regulation is now doing more harm than good, but that if we came at it today as a fresh start, we might not choose that exact set of regulation.
To give a very extreme example, let's look at health-inspections for meat.
1. Was motivated by disease tainted meat being wide-spread in cities, with no way of tracking down bad producers, and no simple way for consumers to ensure their meat wasn't tainted before eating
2. Fast forward 100 years
3. The regulation is still beneficial but (a) simple cost-effective testing can be carried out by consumers in their homes or grocers before sales (b) the industry has become incredibly cohesive, with much more sophisticated logistics methods and a smaller number of producers.
Today, if we wanted to 'solve' the issue of tainted meat---the industry could self-regulate out of fear of government action, and consumers/grocers could spot check with relatively small overhead.
We might not end up with the same level of USDA oversight as we currently have---although we probably would end up with something.
It's tempting but wrong to believe that our regulations are exactly what we would have always thought out, in every circumstance, simply because they're currently still beneficial.