Well, I think I’ve refuted that statement. Now for the others.
Regulatory agencies make rules, not laws. And the laws that create the regulatory agency give it specific authority to create those rules. And so the rules made are in fact a direct reflection of the intent of the elected legislators who created and empowered the regulatory agency. People have a say through the electoral process. And as for a lack of notice – well, that’s just ridiculous. All those forms and all that paper shuffle you object to constitutes ample notice.
Cite for “most”? And pray tell how this will differ when we have street cops interpreting the “law” prohibiting antibiotic dispensing for non-bacterial infections? As I noted above, such a system will require its own bureaucracy of experts, these now being employed by the police departments instead of the “regulatory agency”, who will have all the same temptations and opportunities as regulatory bureaucrats do now.
Cite for this duplication? And if it exists, why not get rid of the statutes and ordinances instead of the regulatory agencies?
Again you repeat this article of faith but again you fail to provide any evidence for it. And I note that you’ve replaced the word “forms” with the word “papers” but the statement remains the same.
Cites for any of these assertions? And if the punishments aren’t sufficient for your taste, why not advocate for increased penalties instead of discarding the system? Further, you still have not explained who on the corporate ladder (President of the Board, CEO, Second Undersecretary to the Divisional Vice President, least senior secretary, mail clerk?) you plan to throw into jail for violating your “laws”. Nor have you offered the means by which a conviction could be obtained that wouldn’t require its own mountain of evidentiary paper shuffle. Nor explained how that evidence would be gathered, organized and communicated from police to investigators to prosecutors and on to judges and juries without massive stacks of forms-- and people paid handsome salaries to manage them.
I’m not simply making fun of your objection to form signing, I’m making fun of a ridiculous proposal – that we replace regulations with either nothing at all, or with “laws” to be enforced through the criminal justice system. I have addressed and refuted each and every one of your arguments. You have failed to support any of your blanket assertions, although you continue to repeat them. The fact of the matter is that regulatory agencies by and large have been quite effective in at least mitigating and often in preventing harm to the citizenry and our society at large. Epidemic disease is low, as are food poisoning, defective/dangerous/ineffective consumer goods, nuclear and indeed, almost any category of industrial accidents, and a host of other issues have been quite successfully addressed (although not totally eliminated) by our present system of regulation. Heck, in the words of Pete Seeger, “We’re swimming in the Hudson again!”