Some legal philosophies object to the concept of regulations. Proponents will suggest that they infringe on the freedom of the citizens. That might be a little off base. There are a few scenarios in which regulations restrain aggressive forces and promote freedom.
There are different kinds of control. Typically, control is thought of as an authoritarian government forcing citizens to act against their will. Financial control is sometimes overlooked. Many people are not in a position to quit their jobs when their employers are too domineering. Workplace regulations are in place to set boundaries for the employer.
If there were no workplace regulations, corporations would not be obligated to provide a safe work environment. They could also offer unfair wages with little resistance. Critics might reply that the free market would restrain them. These employers would fall out of favor with other corporations. But that may not be the case. Entrepreneurs can be pretty shrewd. They are looking for the best deal. It might be a little idealistic to assume that everybody would take an ethical stance against these corporate entities.
Beyond that, employers could use their financial control to sexually abuse workers. If an employee were to speak out, she would lose her job. But if there are regulations, the worker would be able to sue the employer and pursue criminal charges. In this case, regulations protect the freedom of the working class.
Many Americans have experienced injuries wherein another party was culpable for the damages. In many instances, that other party will be a major corporation such as a railroad company. Since corporations have been confronted with personal injuries cases several times, they know how to navigate through the system. This is true even with an abundance of regulations. It would be that much easier if there were no regulations.
The system in place now protects innocent people from a financial crisis. The injured party is entitled to medical expenses, funds for time off work and more. Everybody in this situation is also entitled to a railroad crossing accident attorney. Some victims have received a multimillion dollar settlement. Under US law, an individual is entitled to a settlement if there are inadequate crossing signs or other missing safety features. In the absence of these regulations, railway companies would have no obligation to establish crossing signs and it would be difficult to discern who was guilty.
Further, an attorney will know how to bring the case to trial. A jury of your peers is far more likely to look favorably on you than the big corporation. You will probably find the best settlement there. This model seems to be more conducive to freedom than a political philosophy that does not have regulations.
Citizens should be skeptical of a legal philosophy that would strip regulations. While it may have some appeal on the surface, it would be more difficult to maintain a free society. The law is designed to protect the people. Under that law, everybody is entitled to an attorney to interpret and apply the law on their behalf.