We actually can gauge whether regulations are required, by examining them, which is why transparency is needed. We also have to stay clear of the notion that the government must regulate every aspect of life for it to be fair. In a free society we also have to acknowledge that companies have certain rights as well as consumers having free will. This is why democratic and legal processes exist in the first place, and allowing the process to also be open to the populous at large. If there is public outcry over some practice, then it can be examined to see if regulations are required. Sometimes consumer opinion alone will fix things, as we saw with Toole's research greatly improving speaker performance. Once there are exemplars to show how performance should be, then opinions change and companies that produce poor audio gear start losing general market share. That is the beauty of the free market. This can also be said for the Ford Pinto. While I think Ford was unfairly targeted as they were no worse than other auto manufacturers of the time in taking short-cuts, pressure from public outcry as well as the small Asian imports the Pinto was competing against putting pressure on the domestic auto industry led to wide-sweeping changes that improved both safety and emissions. As much as I despise diesel emissions regulations, living near a city I can say the air was so dirty some days it was literally brown, and everything in my house smelled of diesel fumes, and the walls dark with soot. Now there is hardly a trace it was ever an issue, with the air quality improving by many orders of magnitude.
As with all things, balance is needed as the continued regulations will ultimately place undue economic strain on an already faltering economy. We see this with things like onerous fuel economy regulations and prematurely forcing the market to all electric vehicles despite having no viable alternatives beyond fossil fuels and electric grids across the western world that cannot take having the demand on it doubled. And as for frivolous regulations, I think the move towards banning of gas stoves and other such appliances is a good example. Given their relatively small energy footprint is they neither are substantial generators of greenhouse gasses nor are necessarily any more unsafe than other forms of heating and cooking. Further, there is still no viable way to power all these new electric devices, and moving to entirely electric heating will essentially be running refrigeration based HVAC throughout the year, which may be a disaster in very cold areas when the temperature plummets, leading to power outages due to increased demand. Moreover, pointing solar calculators at the sky and putting electric pinwheels out in the ocean does not constitute a viable alternative to power civilization. Further, they are creating environmental disasters of their own due to their poor recyclability and turning undeveloped areas into various solar and wind harvesting operations, impacting wildlife. We do eventually need a solution to avoid any further warming, but this should be focusing on actual solutions like cleaner forms of nuclear power or obtaining viable fusion energy. If the governments really cared as much as they did about developing nuclear weapons back during the cold war, we would see these projects being front-page news pretty much 365 days a year. But we don't, and that says something. Well, it says many things, but since this is an audio form and this is already wildly off-topic I will eschew going further.
But at any rate, yes this is doable, by having regulations be open to public examination and honest debate so we can collectively decide on what regulations are in place and how they will be enforced.
