The Three R's (Updated)

In the beginning, there were rules (the first R). And they were good. But then people decided that the rules were not for them. This led to regulations (the second R). Regulations were enacted by legislators at various levels and were nothing more than a formalized codification of the rules that included consequences for violation. We know them as laws, or statutes, if you prefer.

With the advent of regulations we witnessed the introduction of regulators. No, they’re not the third R. Rather, they are an adjunct to the regulations for without those to enforce existing laws they becomes meaningless.

And finally, there is us, you and I, and our reliance on the regulators to enforce the regulations that were enacted to keep us orderly and safe. Yes, reliance is the third R and perhaps the most important.

Let’s look at a specific example: traffic. In the days when walking and horses were primary means of transportation traffic was pretty much controlled through “rules of the road”. Keep to the right, pass on the left, and so forth. It is hard to imagine anyone walking directly into someone else nor a horse to collide with another equine simply because a rule wasn’t followed 

Cars, however, turned out to be an entirely different animal. They had no sense of self-preservation and would careen blindly into other objects if their drivers set them in that direction. All of a sudden, rules weren’t sufficient to maintain an orderly flow. And that’s when traffic laws came onto the scene in the hopes of mandating a greater civility and predictability when going from A to B. And fines for those that continued to believe that the rules (laws) were meant for someone else.

The regulators in this case are the police or Sheriffs or Highway Patrol that “regulate” the enforcement of the traffic laws. And we have come to rely on these officers to do just that and for good reason. That being the fact that we can safely assume our daily driving will nor be met with collisions and other highly undesirable outcomes at the hands of our fellow motor vehicle operators.

Lately, though, we are being led to believe that industries can regulate themselves thus relieving the government from all of those messy inspection processes. This will save us  tax money while ensuring a continued safe environment in which to exist. And who doesn’t want a smaller government?

One need look no further than the Wall Street debacle to question this self-regulation hypothesis. Or how about e-coli and salmonella alerts? Or the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico? Financial, food supply, or fuel...take your pick. All are examples of this new “self examination” mantra that promises much, but apparently delivers little. As such, how can we rely on any level of acceptable risk when the regulators are taken out of the equation?

A simple answer: we can’t. So when you hear any politico endorsing such streamlining of government, where regulations are disguised as red-tape that we’re all better off without, think long and hard before signing on to such a plan. There’s a good reason for these independent examiners. It would be nice to be able to rely on every corporation or industry or executive to do what’s best for society regardless of profits. Unfortunately, we have a bit of evolving to do before we attain that level. And, in the meantime, it’s up to our regulators, inspectors, and other monitors to ensure that what should be happening is, indeed, happening. Think of us as the chickens. Now who do you want to guard the henhouse?