Sight or sound of the word "regulation" should not be a cue triggering reflexive reactions - which unfortunately they do with many of us.
Liberty calls for regulation, its supporters ought to be aware of the liberating and wonderfully facilitating effects that proper regulations bring about.
For the sake of liberty, we need to step in the political arena to defend and foster reasonable regulation, but also to unmask the manifold abuses to which regulation may lead.
There are those who think because most people hold political views different from theirs, we therefore live in a decaying civilization dominated by the basest forces.
The below article by Cory Doctorow will be "happy news" for them. "Didn't I tell you!" they will shout. And indubitably, there is much foul in the State of Denmark, and deplorably, Segarra's case may well be as egregious as it appears at first reading.
Carmen Segarra is a former FTC regulator who joined the fed after the financial crisis to help rescue the banking system -- but she was so shocked by the naked regulatory capture on display that she ended up buying a covert recorder from a "spy shop" and used it to secretly record her colleagues letting Goldman Sachs get away with pretty much anything it wanted to do.
At the same time, we should not lose sight of other developments in the regulatory field. I see an important role for those on the side of liberty not just to track down - rarely done by those who think they know it's all one big deceit anyway - and denounce regulation, but to make it better; and an important part of improvement consists in admitting and honing one's faculties of fair and open perception so as to be able to identify, understand, develop and strengthen reasonable forms of regulation.
When the watchdogs aren't working too well, it is partly because of the submissive fascination of the left with everything involving state control, which seems to trump their dislike of corporate symbols of capitalism such as Goldman Sachs; and it is also partly because other forces potentially critical of regulation go over the top in a different way, dreaming a nirvana-fallacy-dream that keeps them inactive, apart perhaps from verbal outrage.
What they overlook is that no matter how much more free our society might become, regulation will always be an area of contention, of fallible trials, and of hard-to-decide or even undecidable issues, with loads of regulatory problems happening at once and dynamically, i.e. changing their decisive features constantly.
Ayres and Braithwaith have written an interesting book ("Responsive Regulation. Transcending the Deregulation Debate") on dimensions of regulation that lie beyond uncritical approval and wholesale rejection of regulatory efforts.