A Bridge Over Trouble Water

[Thanks to Ross for pointing out my typo. Liberals in my example are like those who live in DESERT areas, not in areas populated by banana splits and hot fudge sundaes. --Liam]

I've been trying to find a good analogy regarding government regulation, to illustrate the "either extreme is bad" aspect of it, and I think I've finally come up with it: water.

To me, the conservative argument on regulation is like people who have had a family member drown declaring that water is bad, and anything we can do to reduce the amount of water is to the positive.

The liberal argument is more like people who have lived in desert areas, watching people die of dehydration or of insufficient food due to insufficient water, who then go on to declare "water is good, more water is better, any chance you get to increase the amount of water you should take it."

The truth is somewhere in between, people in Galveston, TX aren't likely to buy the "liberal" argument right now, and those is the drought stricken midwest aren't likely to buy the "conservative" one.

So the problem isn't that regulation is "too onerous" or "absolutely necessary always", it's more nuanced than that. The problem is that SOME regulation is necessary, too much is onerous.

But the key is that after years of Republican control, we're much closer to drought than to flood. The browning, crumbling decay of the mortgage and financial industries shows that.

Is more regulation ALWAYS the key? No, just like more water during flood season will just wash the seeds away. But when your crops are dying and your throat is parched, it's not time to be stocking up on dehumidifiers.

Liam.