Your last sentence makes no sense. Something can both be good, and be undesirable for government regulation. For example, it's good for me to eat vegetables. But it would be odious to have a law requiring me to eat X number of vegetables per day. Similarly, a person can be in favor of wearing seatbelts but opposed to a law requiring seatbelt use.

You sullied a great set of questions with the last sentence, which makes the whole set fail the ideological Turing test.

Whether regulation is a good or a bad tool for solving problems is an opinion. It cannot, by definition, be "untrue". At most one can say that they disagree and cite evidence as to why.

exactly :)

you are programmed to think this way because you will focus on some “good regulations” and say “look, regulation in ____ caused all these positive things.” but regulation means that government decided what can or cannot be done. and government is run by people that spend 70+% of their time fundraising. and people that shell out money at said fundraisers will want things and return. and that leads to regulations which are not in the interest of people in general but you know… also regulation is a double-egded sword as you always imagine that regulation will “go your way cause you are smart and have common sense” but we both know (especially in the USA) that is not the case. every regulation made by one political party the other will do everything possible to remove once they get the power back and vice versa

[flagged]