You cannot separate the idea of regulation from their harm because they are inherent to the concept. A system so complex and dynamical as human civilization is beyond our ability to correctly ascertain the outcome of interventions, especially those imposed from the top down. In other words, we're likely to do more harm than good by imposing interventions because we cannot accurately predict their outcomes. Which is why they often have paradoxical effects. Rent control is a fantastic if trivial example of such.

We know central planning doesn't work, yet we are inclined to do it anyway under the false notion that it's better to do something rather than nothing.

The "we" that knows central planning doesn't work and the "we" inclined toward central planning are the same?

If so, I've not met this group of people, but I'd like to share your first point with them because I tend to agree.

>Rent control is a fantastic if trivial example of such.

No it isn't. Rent control is made to provide short term relief. Regulations tend to be long term requriements. Of course making a short term temporary solution long term does not work.

>we're likely to do more harm than good by imposing interventions because we cannot accurately predict their outcomes

For policy, I think it is important to be risk averse. Regulations are extremely risk averse. Slowing down reckless actions so that people don't die should be considered a good thing. Of course, that can be anathema to businesses who rush to be first to market.

I don't see regulations being a problem here, but the cost of the regulations. Instead of focusing on de-regulations we look into what that 100k certification is going to? Hopefully not yet another for-profit middleman with incentives to bog the process down.

> In other words, we're likely to do more harm than good by imposing interventions because we cannot accurately predict their outcomes.

This doesn’t follow from your premise.

> We know central planning doesn't work

Europe conquered the world using central planning. Every society on earth with any measure of security, order, and cleanliness to speak of is dominated by a central bureaucracy. It works.

> under the false notion that it's better to do something rather than nothing.

Doing nothing is precisely why anarcho-capitalists failed to change anything. Everyone smart associated with that movement studied power dynamics and moved onto other projects.

> We know central planning doesn't work

Most corporations and dictatorships seem to be centrally planned. Communism didn't work out for the Soviets, but they also didn't have smartphones and ChatGPT.

Central planning is why our cities are no longer choked by smog. It is extremely difficult to predict outcomes in complex human system, but that cuts both ways: it’s hard to know if some intervention is good or bad, and it’s hard to know if leaving things alone is good or bad.

If you leave things alone, you get the light bulb and the airplane, but also leaded gasoline and radioactive tonics. The notion that it’s always better to do nothing rather than something is as fallacious as the opposite.

And you cannot separate the idea of lack of regulation from the harm inherent to the concept.

This kind of lazy ideological posturing is thought-terminating and incredibly tiring.

Your position is simply unable to demonstrate to us how a blanket policy of letting whatever corner-cutting garbage slip into your food, medicine, construction materials, safety systems actually leads to globally better outcomes. It would be truly baffling if of all conceivable points on the axis it was a global optimum.