Less Regulation, More Information, Better Results
Published September 26, 2023
Regulations assume the government has all relevant information to solve a problem optimally, but bureaucrats can't make the best choices for individuals because they lack personal knowledge and constraints. Providing data so people can decide themselves utilizes more information than expert bureaucrats have access to. Though not perfect, as government could mislead, providing information is generally a better non-coercive solution than regulation.
When there is a problem in society, people tend to expect the government to regulate the problem away, regardless of how harmful or costly the regulations may be. But what if, in some situations, the government chose to provide information instead of regulating. Regulations implicitly assume that the government has all the relevant information about the problem and can regulate toward an optimal solution.
However, bureaucrats can't make optimal decisions for individuals because they don't know the choices, knowledge, or constraints that each individual faces. For example, a patient suffering from a fatal disease will be much more willing to take experimental or unproven drugs. The possible side effects down the road may be worth it to him or her if the alternative is more grim.
Only the person at risk can evaluate whether risking a dangerous drug is better than suffering from a deadly disease. Bureaucrats and politicians, on the other hand, aren't suffering from the disease themselves, and approving a drug that turned out to be dangerous could put their careers in jeopardy. Providing data and allowing individuals to decide the right course of action means that more information is used than a centralized board of expert bureaucrats has access to.