Regulations

In reference to the acts passed by government I find the term “regulation” is problematic for several reasons.

Firstly, the term “regulation” is question-begging of itself. That is to say, it assumes of itself the legislation is going to succeed in “regulating” (or regularising) the behaviour of this or that thing, but it is not always the case that regulations succeed in regulating (or regularising.) They don’t always work or achieve what they are meant to achieve. Sometimes they have been observed to have the opposite effect from what is intended. An example is the fact that the financial industry was the most regulated of all industries at the time when the banks collapsed and the recession started (and remains so). People are now calling for “more regulation” of the financial industry, and certainly it seems that that is due, but clearly it is not the quantitative amount of regulation which is the key factor but the quality and nature of the regulations in place.

All a “regulation” can really do is draw a line in the sand which says “You are not allowed to do X. If you X then the consequences will be Y.” This is may often be justified, for example: “if you pollute the environment (X) then you will have to pay to clean up the mess in addition to what is deemed a suitable penalty (Y),” where Y is jail time or a fine or both.

So regulations don’t necessarily regulate anything, but they do set up boundaries which cannot be crossed without repercussions. (If they get caught!)

Perhaps then a fairer term than “regulations” is “controls.” Although this may present some of the same problems in implying that the control works, but the word is meant to be implied in the sense of exerting control over behaviour and in that way circumvents the rhetorical device.

In so far as making explicit the exertion of control the term also side steps another rhetorical device in that the term “regulation” euphemises the use of force (forcing someone not to do X by threat of punishment Y) as applied by the state.

Sometimes that use of force is an execution of the general will, sometimes it isn’t. More often than not regulations are dreamed up by people in or connected to established industries who want to make it as complicated and expensive as possible for new companies to crop up and jeopardise their market share, therefore you need x, y and z licence, and this safety check and a qualification in that course, and this and that and that and this. You’ll need to pay a lawyer just to be able to understand all the checks and balances, and probably an accountant to make sure you haven’t slipped up anywhere. That is the trick that is used by big companies so often to reduce competition and keep their profit margins, they need lawyers and accountants anyway so it’s not big extra cost to them but it is to an upstart.

There is a general assumption that regulations stand to benefit the public but often they are conceived by policy-makers and think-tanks associated to the established “big boys” in industry.