It is good exercise for those conscious of the value of liberty, to try to become more aware of how well government (or a fruitful interaction between civil society and government) works in countless ways.

I think, traffic is by and large rather well regulated in my country.

Utilities, too, though less and less so, as the pertinent rules and regulations have suffered from a strong impact by fanatical “ecologists,” in recent years.

Mind you, this is not the place to discuss in extensive measure remarkable reversals and bureaucratic resistance to over-politicization and takeover of the law by partisan zealots. In a word: I do perceive government agencies operating with a distinct determination to serve a pluralistic democracy, rather than permanently dominant special interest groups.

However, this requires participation in the political process, it is not helped by summary condemnation of government activities.

Your view strikes me as eminently sensible. I concur, yet not without realising that organising that crictically-constructive dialogue in itself poses a great number of problems, not all of which we may expect to solve satisfactorily. I suspect, regulating will always be a matter full of fuzzy ends and unresolved issues. Good regulation, I suppose, is a process of ongoing experimentation.

Like you, I would emphasise the need to monitor carefully the potential for danger inherent in regulatory efforts, and in particular administrative creep and the wide spectrum of potential abuse that derives from power-related advantages of governmental authorities.

For me, as someone who consciously values freedom, it is not always easy to keep a mental and intellectual balance between (a) watchfulness in the face of “statism,” and (b) an appreciation for, indeed, a willingness to contribute to services sensibly rendered by government (agencies). Alternately, I tend to err on this or on that side.

Please do provide an example of a set of regulations that are working well.

I do worry sometimes that I’ll fall into this trap. My ideal self would use examples of bad regulation to say “the null hypothesis should be that regulating X is difficult and will not raise welfare. For any given regulatory scheme, the *burden of proof* is on the proposer to explain why this scheme is likely enough to work, and useful enough if it does, that we should try it, keeping in mind that if it doesn’t work, we’re probably stuck with it. And if we don’t have the ability to have that discussion, we should be heavily biased against regulation”

Indubitably, monitoring regulation and creating well-informed awareness of its problems and abuses is of the essence. However, aren’t there vast areas of regulation that work well? For instance, the land registry office is working much to my contentment. Do we have finer criteria of assessment than the government/non-government paradigm? For the habitual decrier of government regulation, is there not the danger of committing a nirvana fallacy?

Can we cite examples of excellence in government regulation – to elevate the mood?

Are there not uplifting developments in regulation? How about: “Responsive Regulation. Transcending the Deregulation Debate.” by Ayres and Braithwaite?