Topic: Let's get rid of all regulations, what can possibly go wrong (Read 429 times)

Not a recent post but worth commenting on...
 Regulation is important but it has to be according to the right rules/standards which make the regulation a Right Regulation, otherwise a regulated product would be as bad as not passing through one.
Regulation doesn't have to be done by governments, but they can inspect for compliance... You could self-regulate by following rules or standards that are of better quality than what the governments have in place and they will simply look at your work/product and be speechless. What makes them speechless is their inability to find fault or issue in your work/product.  This is why it's important to go beyond the laid down rules if you wish to self-regulate with little to no issue.

---

The main purpose of a just law is to guide us to do what is right, not to take away our freedom.

In the army there is a saying "Military regulations are written in blood" - and it means that in this set of rules, there is a negative experience on the basis of which these rules were created.

And indeed, the rules are written not just to realize their fantasy, but to minimize possible risks known to the authors, at the moment, or anticipated risks.

But everyone has the right to manage risks in his own way Sorry for the cynicism here - but not the implementation of rules and instructions warning of danger, it is one of the options of natural selection ...

Every human society and even the animal world has its own rules of behavior. They are based on the mistakes of previous generations and are generally necessary and useful. But since our rough physical world is imperfect, sometimes the rules set by people are stupid and useless. Therefore, not everything is so simple. Without general rules of behavior there will be chaos, war and violence. Therefore, rules are necessary, but they should not regulate people's lives too much, since they violate their freedom of choice.

Any stakeholder is more often heavily attached to their interests than entrepreneurs, who are always freer to work in several places with different jobs. This means that entrepreneurs only rely on two things to be able to work in several places for better income, while stakeholders will not be too free to make other jobs besides just one of them even though they have sufficient skills and capital.

That is why entrepreneurs always want to hone their skills after they have sufficient capital to set up several businesses in different places. If the choice is made for these two things, it is clear that I will prefer to be an entrepreneur rather than a stakeholder who is always attached. After all, in this world there are also not a few entrepreneurs who have been successful, so I don't want to see other professions other than just that.

That is so bad tragedy and I’m so sorry for the people onboard man. Must have been horrifying incidence. Yes I agree that rules and regulations are for the controlled environment and they have their own benefits. People always feel restricted when they are under the influence of regulation but they are there for their own good. Just like an example given in the OP there is also another associated with the medical field. If someone is getting educated in the field of virology and bio engineering then they could just make bioweapon and make sick world. But this doesn’t happen because most of the clinical studies are strictly monitored by FDA or other relevant authorities. In similar ways trading, supply chain, import export and everything that can create chaos if not regulated is under the influence of government all the time. Definitely worth reading and keeping in mind.

Actually, this is not entirely true.
When you say the government and agencies always act after the shit has happened.
There are times when agencies warn people time and again about a particular thing, but they just don't listen.
The regulations are there for a reason, but people always feel they know better. And that's the difference between a lunatic and a genius; the end product. If those guys have succeeded in their mission they would have come back as heroes of some sort. Their names would have been in history books, but since they didn't make it, it's a different story.
People warned about the failures of bank and people are still warning but only a few people listen.
The government and other bodies preaching the gospel of global warming and how we're killing the planet, but nobody listens. They when things go wrong and the government begin to look for a way to remedy the situation we'll say they're proactive and not reactive?

True, every effort must be made. However, if they work somewhere, for example as entrepreneurs, I'm sure more or less they will follow the rules that have been set, so that they are not hampered in carrying out their respective activities, but they also expect that. everything that is made will be easy and not complicated from the stakeholders.

Yes, similar to the problem today, people are always demanding rights and freedom in life and complain about their government's oppression, but they really don't understand that the government is always the place to calculate how a better society, a country without a well-functioning system the people will suffer, and there are many examples of such countries that I do not want to name. Even the fact that organizations connect across borders to have common regulations, honestly there are legal stories that are not satisfactory in life, but it is only a few, because not all of us are equal. Are you aiming for the common good of society? I think if any of us are high in the sharing of peace, everything will always be in the balance of yes, a happiness that I consider absolute in life.

We cannot drop an incident like this on a violin sector, but it has intersections. when the FTX bankruptcy, it was the beginning of a strong regulatory wave, and perhaps it is the reason for all this legal tightening in the United States itself. The OceanGate incident may be the beginning of more clear laws that govern commercial diving and submarines that are being built for this purpose.
But with all these legislations and legal oversight, you will find that some banks have manipulated millions of dollars^[1][2][3] in money laundering and illegal trade.

[1] Danske Bank Pleads Guilty to Fraud on U.S. Banks in Multi-Billion Dollar Scheme to Access the U.S. Financial System
[2] Deutsche Bank's $10-Billion Scandal
[3] Five global banks to pay $5.7 billion in fines over rate rigging

This means that the stages that must be passed are in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations that have not been fully implemented.
Regarding this incident, it can be said that there were deficiencies and negligence, there could have been human factors or technical factors that were not known. which is certainly a lesson for all parties, both thinkers or entrepreneurs and the government so that in the future all of these factors can be minimized.

They are smart to invent those kind of things so I think they also know the consequences if they won't allow regulators to inspect their work. They still continue maybe because they are desperate to earn. I don't think they can influence the majority about their plans because I believe the majority will choose safety first.

As for the article that you read, I think that's crazy. I don't believe in aliens but even without aliens, it was still possible to attain unity and I think it already happened. Can't you see that there are now lesser wars than compared to before?

@OP Thanks for the info about that submarine issue but you forgot that they also use a cheap gaming control on top of that. Damn, imagine that?

You are right, that's a very common opinion on this forum because it's easy to talk without any experience.

The problem is, Bitcoin's main purpose is to get 3rd parties and why are we not only integrating 3rd parties but also going to regulate it? I mean, we are destroying its main idea by doing that. We are even destroying its idea when we implement Coinbase ecommerce instead of BTCPayserver.
I think people shouldn't be stupid enough to invest in HYIPs, in cloud minings and in other scam projects. It doesn't need regulations, it needs education. And bitcoin mining isn't damaging our eco-system.

What could possibly go wrong? You are right but many people won't have the same understanding like you do, why are news still affecting crypto today? It's because of the crypto adopters themselves, they can't do without panic, so, unfortunately, we can't change this or stop this from transpiring.

There are also tons of people waiting for the involvement of the government first before they start investing in crypto, for such people how will they get into crypto if we get rid of regulation? 

Wait till the ETF gets approved, you will see what crypto have been missing in the past years, many people will start getting involve at this point, big amount of money will flow easily into crypto.

Society without regulation and government is totally non-sense, but society with different type of government and different way of how regulation were made than today is not impossible. All that being said, and however I said that today's government is not perfect and has many flaw, I still can't think of any different governmental form that could be applied instantly on todays society. A government when oligarch is not on top of them, and money and power is not always above everything, seems perfect but it definitely is utopian.

I believe it depends on what kind of regulations are being imposed or suggested by the government and governing authorities because people would know if a regulation is to protect them from something bad or if it's basically only for the benefit of the authorities themselves, those who are against regulations that are put ahead only for the safety of the people and the society are surely out of their minds and they should reconsider.

But those who are against regulations that they know aren't really for their safety since they don't see any threat in those things, an example would be Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, I don't blame them because such regulations are not imposed for the safety of the society at all.

I guess that it depends on your location. I believe that in recent years, the regulation and enforcement must of increased, in comparison to 10 years ago. At least innovation isn't yet massively stifled. Let's hope it gets better, not worse.

I agree 100℅ regarding the submarine though. Not following material regulations for the sake of being known for breaking rules, is ridiculous. I don't know how that all progressed to where it is now.

Well, he is going to face some very strong litigation in court, because the Billionaire's lawyer is going to have a field day with this in court. If you want to see how a world will look like without regulations being enforced... then watch the old Western movies, where they shoot people left ..right and center.. over spilling a drink on their lap. 

A world needs regulations to retain order..... this is so in nature too.... just watch the animal programs on TV and see how the pecking order are enforced by animals. 

I'm also not a proponent of a world of the minimum state that doesn't do much. I believe in regulations, as long as they actually focus on protecting the people and ensuring that the businesses are fair. Things that can lead to someone's death (like the submarine) should be regulated very strictly, and punishment for breaking these regulations should be significant. But Bitcoin is not like that, it doesn't pose any direct risk on its own. What should be regulated in the crypto area is centralized businesses (like crypto exchanges) to protect the customers. Instead, the regulations focus on imposing restrictions on the customers, and that's not right.

But we also need to make it clear here that this is just one of the remaining bad cases, everything is fine, there is one thing that I find in this life quite funny when some people just expect someone to make some small mistake to assume that person is bad. However, that's okay, regulations have their own level and applicability, it may not be suitable for all situations but I think when that happens too much, people will find a way to fix it change to suit the criteria of common rights and obligations.

Every mistake has a price that is an inevitable rule in this life, but when it comes to the operation of the government of a country here, it will be difficult for me to fully understand the problem of operation and control.
There are legal rules that appear to make people aware of possible consequences of wrongdoing, but there are things that are abused and bypassed by those who understand the law. I think if the regulations are not agreed upon by the parties, it will always appear controversial in society, so the issue of change and like-mindedness will need attention.

Afaik there was also a member of the team (was a scientist iirc?) that was kicked out because he warned the company about the risks of the submarine they were trying to dumbly push. I'm fine with companies, organizations, or anyone really experimenting. It's the leading cause of improvements in literally everything. Just remember to not be dumb enough to ignore the risks involved and push it to public use without any forewarning.

To be fair, regulation exists on the internet, but it isn't pushed forcefully because it doesn't directly involve the life of someone. On this submarine though? That's something that holds human lives.

This is an extremely skewed view. I believe that regulations should exist when it comes to human life and safety. Otherwise, it is absolutely true that it stifles innovation.

In the case of the internet, if regulation didn't exist, yes there would be anarchy...but who cares? Doesn't anarchy already exist even with regulations? Wouldn't people learn and become vigilant faster if the internet was uncensored and unregulated?

That's my view anyway. As for this submarine saga - it's ironic about the wealth of the individuals on the submarine and the wealth of those on the titanic. Coincidence? I think not.

I like people talking without any sentiments, that's why I see your comparison as useless as anything. I wonder why you would be comparing Rush's risk with crypto to justify that it doesn't hurt anyone. Rush's own is obvious and took lives but have you thought about how the total unregulated crypto environment would hurt people and the economy? And what the effect could be over time?

I stand for crypto adoption and regulation, else, everything will go where we don't expect as the users are also the people you don't know their minds and motives.

Are you serious? if you want to get rid of all regulations and centralization, you must become a super power man which you need to mastering everything.

If you're want to go other country, you must build your own plane and become a pilot. You have an another option, you must build your own ship and know how to handle it. If you're want to eat a cookie, you must become the farmer who's grow your own garden and produce anything that used to bake your own cookie.

After all, you're need to rely on someone because it's impossible you need to do everything by yourself.

Are you really going to compare the "Titan" submarine incident with the crypto regulations? Are you serious?
I think that most of the cryptocurrency users aren't against the idea of the crypto industry being regulated. The problem is what kind of regulations the crypto industry really needs and are they effective at preventing the "average Joe" from getting scammed in projects like FTX.
We all agree that all the "high risk-high innovation" industries should be regulated, because such regulation would help protecting human lives.

A few keywords come to mind:

BALANCE

There needs to be a balance between how heavily or lightly regulated things are - in the case of the Sub, money spoke and people were bought out.  The balance and common sense (which I'll mention next) simply wasn't there, sure they could do this crazy thing (and did) and lo and behold there are consequences when you do stupid things.

However, let's imagine that we have an angry and authoritarian leader who is opposed to change, new facts and new ideas...

Dr. Roger Bannister would have been in trouble for proving great leader wrong because 'no man can run a mile in under four minutes' was the accepted common belief in the early 1960s in the UK.  

The modern diesel and electric trains would have been banned, because 'change is scary... we'll stick with steam trains, just because.'

Bitcoin would have been banned because great leader cannot understand new thing, if great leader cannot understand it is wrong and banned.

COMMON SENSE

'How dare you not tell me to peepee on the electric fence... bzzzzzboom!'

Use your brain, if it's too good to be true or seems dumb then it is.

The flipside is that by not doing something, we can make a problem worse - during Lockdown, deafblind children in the UK suffered because they could not do the things that they normally did and struggled to adapt to the draconian laws (however well intended...)

'We must keep people safe because deadly virus'

'Locking down the world will hurt people with special issues though...'

'BLAST YOU, I'M A GOOD PERSON AND I AM IN CHARGE!'

'Can we compromise and can our feelings be made known>'

'NO, NAY, NEVER!'


Whilst safety is needed, too much and indeed too little of something is bad enough.

A little rhyme to help you remember:

Flashy Jack was quick to act and thought about it later
Whilst Dopey Pat just sat and sat - action, he did not favour.
Steady John said 'steady on, I'll think whilst I have time...
... but then I act, or it's a fact that I'll be in the slime!'

Well, I partly agree. Breaking rules if you're risking people's lives is obviously not ok. If Stockton Rush would use his submersible himself that would be fine. Space rockets, planes, submarines all were risky inventions. Satoshi Nakamoto and Bitcoin also broke some rules but he didn't hurt anyone. Bitcoin is revolutionary, it also ignores some regulations, so what? Ban Bitcoin?

Many are just stereotyping what they read without really not knowing what they read.  I am not one of those who thinks regulation is bad.  Regulation is implemented to protect the interest of both the state and its people.  Just like the case presented by @OP.  They are the standard to follow in order keep people safe from whatever undesired result of neglect or substandard actions.


True!  Bitcoin as decentralized in nature is very hard to regulate but it is not impossible especially Bitcoin needs to go through centralized system in order for the people to use them in their daily needs.  I am also one of the believer that regulation is necessary to keep the Bitcoin community safe from exploitation and scams.

I have a feeling that on this forum there's a very common opinion that all regulations are bad, and if society gets rid of them and the government, everyone will get rich and the economy will be booming.

As for Bitcoin, it itself is impossible to regulate, and I don't think there has ever been any attempts to do so by pressuring devs, miners and full node operators. But Bitcoin ecosystem absolutely should be regulated, exchanges need to prove solvency; hyips, cloud mining and other scams need to be prosecuted; mining needs to be regulated to not cause disruptions to energy grid and to not contribute to environment pollution.

The authorities are only focusing on what they think is important and with other issues they remain silent as if they don’t care at all. Justice in my country will take years because the court will have a final decision on this and most of the time it will take a decade or more, the worst is to be neglected with the fair judgement. If there’s a fair regulations and the government really do their job to protect everyone including the nature, I believe we can have a better society that makes a different.

Thing is that most likely Rush thought that his way of doing things were reasonable as well. As most of us aren't deep sea experts with submarines and deeps sea like Rush wasn't. Most of us aren't experts in political science either. And countries have move moving parts than submarines.

And even when everything affects to everything and there are countless of studies about political science and how to keep careful balance, for some reason people who haven't read one book think that they know best what are reasonable regulations.

And since you already wrote that people running that sub were bunch of idiots, what do you think rest of the human kind is like, who think they know what's reasonable regulation?

I get your point, OP, and I'm not an anarchist by any means but I do think there are way too many laws and various regulations on the books (in the US at least) and that law enforcement has far too much power.  So do regulatory bodies, as evidenced by the hard time the SEC is giving crypto exchanges.  They won't give clear guidance and just seem to be handing out fines and wrist-slaps and whatever else as it suits them.

I'm for less government and more freedom, but not to the extent that there's absolutely no oversight.  That said, the regulations didn't prevent the submarine disaster.  You can't protect against assholes who get away with ignoring the reasonable laws that exist, and there are plenty of examples of that throughout history (especially if you're an asshole with a lot of money and/or influence).  Some things just never change.

And by the way, let the anarchists keep hoping for anarchy; I doubt the world is going back to that stage in any of our lifetimes.

That was my first thought as well.  There are rules for safe design of buildings and vehicles and whatnot, and then there's the very fuzzy, ever-changing world of financial regulation.  The latter is much more murky and prone to abuse IMO.

Well, Stockton Rush was warned beforehand by multiple experts in the field but he still insisted on what he wanted to do. There are tons of red flags in what he wanted to happen for this expedition, and yet those who paid and joined him in the dive didn't say anything. I think if I was a person with that kind of money, I would believe the experts more than what the merchant trying to sell me a product says about his plans. I get that OceanGate wanted to be innovative or quirky, but physics and nature don't care about these things - they follow their rules, and your little submersible and your company wanting to be innovative and quirky won't change that, not even one bit.

IMO, those rich people inside the submersible are partly to blame, too. Just because you can pay for the trip doesn't mean you should.

Since this thread is opened in Economy board, I assume the main idea behind this title is that bitcoin should be regulated, right? But bitcoin is finance and submarine is a different case. There should be regulations on absolutely everything that human physically uses, including airplanes, buses, metro, home/apartments, buildings and so on. Things like these should be very highly regulated, jobs where there is a chance that person may damage health, should be highly regulated but finances are different things. Finances are regulated in a way that they control what and how you spend, they charge you taxes and for bonus, they print money and make you pay with inflation. I don't want government to track me what I buy and when I buy. Isn't it interesting that governments don't care if you don't earn money but they will knock on your door if you generate money and won't pay taxes? Yes!

Sometimes regulation is necessary, but regulation that is too strict will also make people constrained. But compared to not having regulation, it is much better to have regulation, even if it seems like a chain of restraints. Because you can imagine how chaotic the world would be if everyone did what they wanted, without any regulations that restrained them.
The OceanGate case is one example of how an overly narcissistic and self-confident person who ignores regulations and sees himself as the right one meets his own end. Luckily he was with the group, so he was able to meet the Titanic passengers along with the other passengers.

I think obviously some of the government regulations are very important in some aspects if you see. They are not made to stop you but obviously to safeguard you. Even in cryptos etc they are made for this purpose only, because we don't have the solution to the problems that might come many governments think an outright ban could help but it doesn't eventually when our technology will grow, governments might be able to find actual solutions to these issues and then allow Cryptos in a regulated environment.

Sometimes things are not popular enough that there is a lack of eye to watch regulations enforcement. The regulation might not be clearly stated but it is inherently essential for those who participate in some sectors aware of what consequences they might give to the customers.

OceanGate recent tragedy is truly ubiquitous. What enraging is all the signs from former employees and the CEO itself are absurd, they did not ensure the safety of their own product. It is ignorance at its finest. Specifically, the fact that the submarine uses secondhand material, and is not certificated to go below the intended deepness. Though, it does not mean regulation should be swayed away as a whole, there should be someone who watches the regulators.

I'm a bit surprised at the way the OP addresses the issue, although it can be said that the current law or regulation is fair, I also agree that sometimes it is a lack of humanity, not knowing. Have you seen any lawsuits of the same nature as mine where a murderer becomes a hero being praised for his actions killing evil people with depraved behavior. The authorities have not yet intervened, in fact there are many issues that people want to promote their own interests, fairness can be promoted, but looking directly at the truth, we have not been able to get justice. That way, the cost of living will take a form that is beyond our comprehension, but I would still like to reiterate the justice that exists.

Sometimes people forget the terrible consequences that will happen for the sake of the immediate benefits, like many regulations in life, they all have a way of seeing and approaching whether it is accepting or rejecting it, it is also a how to bring balance to life. As the story you mentioned really, I find that this problem comes from small numbers, but when they have the opportunity to rise up more with money, relationships cause influence they can influence think of the majority, and the thing to do is to always spread the right things in life without pursuing personal gain.
Today I just happened to read an article about Ronald Reagan speaking about the issue of aliens that will help people to unite, although this is just a hypothesis but I also think the point is that we need to more solidarity in the world, not competition as it is now, perhaps without the appearance of aliens, we have killed each other.

The most dangerous thing is to manipulate human lives. When it comes to human safety, there must be strict rules and there is no room for complacency in safety rules in order to obtain an invention or save some money.

Of course, accidents will always happen, but this is not an excuse for not taking safety measures according to the highest standards when it comes to human life. It is a catastrophe, and those responsible for it must be severely held accountable, because if they are not severely held accountable, this failure will cause more lives to be lost in the future.

My condolences to the families of the victims who lost their lives in the accident.

Remember the tragedy in Turkey? There were speculations that construction organizations violated construction rules very severely. In the end, thousands of people suffered. Is it possible to deviate from the rules when human lives are in your hands? I agree that in some industries there should be strict regulations, the violation of which will threaten very severe penalties. Man is such a creature that it is difficult to motivate him to do honest work with just a carrot. He always needs a whip, that is, strict discipline, for order.

I'm a proponent of a purely capitalist economy, and even someone that believes in an absolute state of capitalism, we would concede that some level of regulations are required.

OceanGate was subject to no regulations. There wasn't a single certification board that was willing to certify the vessel, nor was there an insurance company willing to offer them coverage because the vessel was assemped seemingly out of a hardware store. Sure, *zero* regulations are disastrous. But no one's arguing for total lawlessness absent of legal structure and regulatory framework. The current crypto frameworks are burdensome by design, ie overregulated.

When we talk of regulations there are many angle and points you would want to view it from let say, regulation in bitcoin does it really possible and necessary to regulate it since bitcoin isn't controlled by government and how would they regulate it? Since they can't regulate it then it's better exchanges are being regulated to make sure investors interest are being protected.

Then to other things that concerns life is very important to be regulated by the certified body's and groups of professions who are designated  into the field before the creator or the inventor could carry out the test run.

This is another problems we are having nowadays that needs to pay urgent attention, any inventor or CEO that doesn't want to seek Idea from external body or regulated body's may surely incur some danger. As a groups of companies, there is a reason for a collective idea no way only the boss overall whatever suggestion being contributed I think for sure the CEO may likely be in danger in time to come.

I still wonder what these billionaires thought when they boarded a submarine made of only carbon fiber and an Xbox controller. I mean, are they stupid enough to ride something even the quality of which is still doubted by many experts. even the funniest thing, they use an xbox controller which is only worth 30s USD, this is what I still can't understand.

it's no wonder that many people on social media laugh at them for being stupid enough to be able to dive to a depth of 3800 meters with a submarine made only of carbon fiber and an xbox controller, moreover they are billionaires who should be smart enough to see the situation.

We're not against of regulations if it's with other certain areas of the communities and countries that we're in. This is different from the regulations that we're having based on what they think about cryptocurrencies.

This is really sad and tragic moment. I've even read something about rejecting hiring actual experts that should have given them a better guide on this project.

I also watched a video of one of the excavation of the said submarine and saw how it looks like under, it was a success so it had gained confidence but it's a different thing having people on board.

This case even violates the rules of science where it applies in every part of the earth that is without regulation though, this case isn't the right approach to get rid of regulation completely.
Generally, people just don't want administrative rules that actually have almost no impact when they're violated unless you have substantial need in the realm of bureaucracy.

Well the highseas have very few rules. He dodged certification because he operated the sub only in international waters.

At least one of the dead was the ceo of the sub company.

Those examples you give are too exaggerated to the point of being unrealistic. For me, the amount of regulations should be reduced to the minimum possible, as well as taxes, but for example for the nuclear or the petrochemical industry, of course there must be regulations. Besides, today we are not exactly lacking in regulations. There are thousands and thousands of pages regulating ad nauseam for even if you want to open a fucking souvenir store. Besides, if the creator of the submarine violated the regulations, he committed a crime to begin with.

People will still prefer being unregulated in some aspect than the other because they of the restriction it makes on them to be able to go on any length towards achieving their main aims and targets, this is about the right of doing what they feels normal for their own benefit in their business enterprise but due to the regulation protocols, it brings down their role and impact to effective changes as they have desired for through government regulations.

When it comes to cryptocurrencies, it is true that governments are not doing their part, and they are negatively impacting the development of the industry as the SEC is doing. But besides that, there are also many investors who are against all regulations, they do not need to know what the regulations are and constantly oppose and strongly oppose.

It can be said that currently, the government and the people have not found a common voice, while we want freedom, the government wants to control us more. Since then, there have been too many unresolvable conflicts.

I am not against all regulations but they should at least make regulations that are appropriate and fair for all rather than just for their own benefit.

Yep there is the need for regulation but we can't compare this to the innovation of cryptcurrencies where regulators are deliberately not allowing exchanges to register.

Oceangate is merely an adventurer's dream. Those who are willing to risk their lives to reach the deepest are happy to risk. I'm sure they know the risk, they probably sign waivers too.

This whole story has been truly sad, and it saddens me to think that someone could be so stupid with other peoples lives.  I have since heard from several experts in deep sea travel, like famed film maker James Cameron, who talked about how crazy it was that they went down like they did with all the knowledge they had.   

I know it's a bit "harsh" to discuss..but that company better pay for the costs of the search and rescue mission.  That's not an economical hurdle the government should have to take on with what we now know about the situation.

I think most people are fine with regulations as long as it is reasonable. The problem is that the one who runs the system can't be trusted, which is hard to solve since you can't simply tell everyone to "try to participate in governance then".

If this point is being connected with cryptocurrencies, such as exchange and whatnot, the problem is not really similar since the stakes are different. As far as I'm aware, nobody died when they don't submit KYC and don't want to do it, just facing some inconveniences. If we really want to force the invisible hand term into this discussion, then some might argue that the stock price of such a company can get slashed if the public found out that the CEO and its staff are a bunch of idiots. CMIIW.

A lot of cases related to exchange insolvency also give us some distrust in how people run these exchanges, or how the government handles the case. The debate about SEC being so unclear with their rules and how they go after exchanges is quite popular on social media afaik.

---

Hopefully, nothing like this will happen in the future.

Regulators will always come up with different allegations and arguments after a tragic incident. It is when people have lost their lives that these government agencies will tell the world how the firm or company broke regulatory rules. But they were around and were watching these firms engage in risky adventures without stopping them. These agencies will not deny that they are aware that OceanGate was risking the lives of people and making a profit from it. Government agencies are reactive and not proactive. These deaths would have been avoided if regulators had sealed the company and ensured they abide by the rules.

Our system is run by highly connected corrupt and greedy folks that act above the law because of their links to the seat of power. The loss of life is irreplaceable, but it becomes painful to the bereaved if it happened because of avoidable mistakes.

It depends on what kind of regulation, but if he chose to ignore regulations that are based on science then it's just suicide.

Source.

Well, he got what's inevitable when he ignores safety... It's never a waste to make sure the passengers come home alive. My deepest condolences, and hopefully this kind of negligence won't ever happen again.

In the case of OceanGate, aside from deliberately ignoring safety precautions and regulations, the CEO also ignored the advice of the experts in the field and also skimped on routine maintenance. There are tons of things that contributed to the said disaster, and most of it started from him just winging it and believing in what he thinks is 'best' for them at that moment.

Also, he surrounded himself with yes men that contributed to this tragedy. There are so many things that could go wrong if there aren't any standards or regulations set into place by governing bodies. So even if we admit it or not, governments and their laws and regulations are still needed in order to keep chaos at bay.

If you have been reading the news lately, you would know the story about OceanGate submarine that failed and killed all people onboard. The cause of this tragic incident is that the creator of the submarine chose to ignore regulations. He believed that they are only in place to stifle innovation and that he knows better than the others and can't be wrong.

OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush said in 2021 he knew he'd 'broken some rules' by making the Titanic submersible out of carbon fiber and not pure metal: 'You're remembered for the rules you break'l

This should be a cautionary tale to people who dream about society without government and its regulations. Imagine if someone makes an "experimental and innovative" nuclear reactor that explodes and gives radiation sickness + cancer to hundreds of thousands. Or someone makes an "experimental and innovative" dam that collapses and floods houses. Invisible hand of the market won't be able to undo the damage or prevent it in the future from repeating again.