Everything is allowed unless it's prohibited. Legislators aren't seers, and courts only rule on real cases before them, not hypotheticals. So both the judicial

Everything is allowed unless it's prohibited. Legislators aren't seers, and courts only rule on real cases before them, not hypotheticals. So both the judicial and legislative avenues of lawmaking are mostly reactive. This is almost always a good thing, as the underlying tradeoffs of a policy are more likely to come into focus once you have examples of real people on all sides of a real controversy, with concrete gains and losses. What you'll find is that there's typically some very broad law on the books, e.g. banning vague categories of anti-competitive behavior. Then the lower courts will hear a bunch of cases of varying similarity, a few get appealed here and there, and you eventually end up with stronger guidance as to a more specific issue.