> My usage is absolutely common parlance. Maybe in your particular social or intellectual circles, but not in common parlance. This is obvious by comparing the

> My usage is absolutely common parlance. Maybe in your particular social or intellectual circles, but not in common parlance. This is obvious by comparing the dictionary definition with your definition: the former is general and widely understood, while the later is values-laden and requires an appreciation of a particular philosophical position. > For instance, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are not considered to be "regulation." They are by definition regulations. If you read the definition of regulation, you would have to agree they are regulations. > Your proposed terms of "good regulation" and "bad regulation" ignore my explanation of support or violation of sovereignty and are just a poor attempt to discredit my (correct) position. They specifically acknowledge and address your points around individual sovereignty - your assertions to the contrary indicate you haven't properly read what I wrote. I called out an example of a 'good regulation' by your definition - an environmental law - to show how regulations can support individual sovereignty. Leaving this point unanswered is what discredits your position. However it's clear to me this contortion around the meaning of 'regulation' is something impossible to honestly defend.