I get what you're trying to say, but yeah, that's a bad example. I think it's extremely reasonable to regulate that things are safe by default - in fact, that i

I get what you're trying to say, but yeah, that's a bad example. I think it's extremely reasonable to regulate that things are safe by default - in fact, that is a core functionality of government. If you really want a tap that will output water hot enough to give 3rd degree burns in one second, I am sure that is possible, the point is that by default it does not. As for competitiveness, I'm not sure how having more burns victims being paid for by medicare is great for the economy, nor do I see how it's efficient for every homebuilder to be forced to go and become an expert on burns so they know exactly what delivery temperature their taps should be set to. It's far more efficient to have a central expert organisation do this research, then declare it the standard. I don't agree with it all the time, of course. Bicycle helmets would be my #1 example, where I think the regulatory authorities have made a big mistake not considering all the externalities and second order ramifications of their policy.