We Need Smart Laws, Not Fewer Laws | Opinion

As the election season heats up, the debate over regulation versus deregulation is taking center stage. While deregulation is often touted as a catalyst for economic growth, the consequences of reducing the number of laws can be catastrophic, as seen in numerous recent disasters.
The Cost of Laws Cuts
Law cuts, much like tax cuts, is a core tenet of the GOP’s platform, rooted in the belief that reducing the number of laws governing businesses benefits everyone. While the rhetoric of deregulation is politically expedient, the realities of its consequences are far more complex and often detrimental to public safety and welfare.
Republicans often advocate for eliminating entire federal departments and numerous laws that govern environmental standards, workplace safety, payroll, overtime, and financial security. They argue these regulations stifle growth and prosperity, making deregulation an easy political sell. In contrast, discussing the need for more laws to safeguard health and welfare is more complex and less politically appealing, which is why Democrats, who support laws, aren’t usually out campaigning for more of it. However, they should be, because the importance of laws in safeguarding health and welfare has been evident for years.
Disasters Drive Law
Disasters often prompt calls for stronger laws. Living in San Francisco, a city with a history of earthquakes and fires, I’ve seen firsthand how strict building codes and safety measures protect citizens from real dangers.
In recent years, investigations have found that the lack of adequate laws, self-regulation, and deregulation have contributed to several major disasters—from Boeing’s 737 Max failures to deadly wildfires and gas explosions in California. The failure of Texas to properly regulate utility companies, resulting in deadly power failures and pricing surges, highlights the risks of inadequate legislation. Incidents like the deadly rail accident in East Palestine, Ohio, or the chemical spill in the Elk River in W.V., further underscore the need for smart, effective laws to prevent such tragedies.
Dollars vs. Lives
It’s really a matter of dollars versus lives. Businesses excel at calculating the costs of complying with laws, such as providing clean air, safe roads, and healthy work environments. However, they struggle to quantify the human and societal benefits of these measures, like reducing pollution-related diseases or ensuring family members stay safe and healthy.
This is where more laws are essential:
—Laws ensure businesses consider potential harms in their operations.
—Enforcement keeps companies accountable for their actions.
Most people agree this is necessary. Yet, we often deregulate or fail to enact new laws, leading to preventable disasters—a cycle we must avoid.
The Need for AI Law
Just as business practices that impact public safety require regulation, so do AI-driven products and services. More laws are essential to ensure AI benefits society and avoids harmful outcomes:
—Preventing AI from perpetuating biases in hiring, lending, and law enforcement.
—Ensuring AI systems in critical fields like health care and criminal justice remain transparent and understandable.
—Protecting personal data from misuse by AI, ensuring ethical data handling.
—Establishing clear accountability for any harm caused by AI systems.
For all its seeming complexity, AI regulation shares similarities with other regulatory areas in ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability. Just as anti-discrimination laws, financial regulations, data protection laws, and product safety standards address critical issues, AI regulation aims to tackle similar challenges in technology.
The Stakes in Law
The key difference between Democrats and Republicans on regulation is that Democrats believe in creating more laws to prevent problems before they occur, while Republicans argue that this is too costly and prefer to deregulate and let issues be addressed through lawsuits, despite their opposition to generous tort laws and high verdicts.
In a political landscape dominated by sound bites, the critical importance of smart, effective laws can easily be overshadowed by calls for deregulation. Yet, when voters are presented with the clear stakes, the connection between robust laws and public safety becomes undeniable.
As we head to the polls, it’s crucial to consider where candidates stand on the need for more laws versus fewer laws. Their positions will have a profound impact on our safety, health, and well-being.
We should choose candidates who advocate for sensible, effective regulatory policies that enhance our safety and well-being by enacting more laws, not fewer.
Jefferson Adams is an author, poet, and journalist
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.