> If the consequences of the law turns out to be as bad This is the usual "the market will regulate itself" argument. It works when the imbalance arises organi

> If the consequences of the law turns out to be as bad This is the usual "the market will regulate itself" argument. It works when the imbalance arises organically, not so much when it's intentional on the side with more power and part of their larger roadmap. The conflict of interest needs to be accounted for. Consequences for whom? Think of initiatives like any generic backdooring of encrypted communication but legislators are exempt. If legislators aren't truly dogfooding the results of that law then there's no real "market pressure" to fix anything. There's only "deployment strategy", roll out the changes slowly enough that the people have time to acclimate. Control theory doesn't apply all that well to dynamical systems made entirely of human beings. You need psychohistory for that.