>If future lives saved is impossible to quantify and that somehow invalidates the idea of less regulation, would it not therefore invalidate the idea of regualt

>If future lives saved is impossible to quantify and that somehow invalidates the idea of less regulation, would it not therefore invalidate the idea of regualtion as well? no, since the causality of regulation saving lives is more direct, obvious, and convincing than the causality of less regulation saving lives the people holding the latter view would need to come up with a convincing argument explaining how less regulation saves more lives than more regulation, ideally specifying the regulation they wish to eliminate