Being born under License Raj, I always feel that regulations is bad. The only thing it does is add shackles and more red tape. But then this article throws a valid new viewpoint.
Back in the nineteen-seventies, an economist named Thomas Schelling, who later won the Nobel Prize, noticed something peculiar about the N.H.L. At the time, players were allowed, but not required, to wear helmets, and most players chose to go helmet-less, despite the risk of severe head trauma. But when they were asked in secret ballots most players also said that the league should require them to wear helmets. The reason for this conflict, Schelling explained, was that not wearing a helmet conferred a slight advantage on the ice; crucially, it gave the player better peripheral vision, and it also made him look fearless. The players wanted to have their heads protected, but as individuals they couldn’t afford to jeopardize their effectiveness on the ice. Making helmets compulsory eliminated the dilemma: the players could protect their heads without suffering a competitive disadvantage.
Basically most people want to do things a certain way, but they cannot do it because it won’t make them look good. So in that case government regulations are good.
eg: A lot of people do not wear specs… Because it makes them feel uncool. So they have 2 options, discard the specs and watch a blurry TV 24 hours a day or go for contact lenses (which harm the eye and increases your risk of infection) So even though you are most comfortable wearing a specs, you do not even want to be spotted with it.
On a lighten tone…. why is it that people wearing specs are regarded as intelligent, who can read and write well… but those wearing a hearing aid not considered good listeners?