On the things we need to regulate and those we don't

The specifics of this example are terrible for the point being made and yet there’s still something here for us:

Most people can instinctively spot a counterfeit bank note in a fraction of a second, according to a new study.

The larger issue is what is it that we need to regulate via the law, bureaucracy or politics, and what can be left to the regulation of folk just getting on with life?

Clearly, the issue of government bank notes is something we do want to regulate by the law, politics and so on. Gresham’s Law is true, bad money drives out good and all that. So we’re not going to try and argue that bank notes don’t need official regulation.

However, there is that larger point to draw from this. Handling a bank note is something that near all of us do with some regularity. Perhaps less than we used to in this digital age and so on, but it’s still something we have substantial experience of. Which is why we can immediately make that decision - we are experienced at the thing being done.

It’s the things we are inexperienced at, which we do rarely, where we can be more easily fooled. Practice does, after all, make perfect.

Which gives us a guide to what needs to be regulated by that law and politics and what doesn’t. Things that are done regularly can be left to us folk on our own - markets in effect. Things that are done rarely might well need that governmental intervention. Regulate pensions by all means - 50 years later is a bad time to find out about an error. Toothpaste flavours perhaps something reserved to the people.