I think, like with the square, the question is: "What are the characteristics that make the set of actions which should be prevented by regulation narrower than

I think, like with the square, the question is: "What are the characteristics that make the set of actions which should be prevented by regulation narrower than the set of all undesirable actions." We know there are a huge number of undesirable actions which we don't think should be regulated. Some of them are minor things, like petty insults or inconsequential dishonesty. Others are major, but are protected by other ideals. For example, choosing to spend a million dollars on gold to bury in a private crypt. Those are some examples that come to mind when I hear that the purpose of regulation is not simply to prevent undesirable actions. It's not that regulation does things other than that. It's that it must have some other attributes in addition to that. Determining those attributes is what makes it not simple.