I’m generally anti regulation. Shouldn’t we teach people to question what they read in addition to how to read? This places a bias on personal liberty. Regulat

I’m generally anti regulation. Shouldn’t we teach people to question what they read in addition to how to read? This places a bias on personal liberty. Regulation and licensing introduces change. There’s no stipulation whether the change is positive or negative, and to again make a change once it’s set generally requires lobbyists and lots of money in the US. Having worked in NYC with union workers I have witnessed how easily it can be abused. Is there any reason why we want to double down on this model? Are we all so blind fed by outrage and/or social media we accept emotions instead of debate? These are the kinds of things I want to see. The human fallacy is known and quantified, although, as far as I know it’s abused / exploited instead of providing neutral ground for policy discussion.