Three Principles that Guide Government Regulation of Dangerous Practice Both state and federal governments have been embroiled in controversies concerning the rights of citizens to engage in harmful practices. In Massachusetts, for example, a mandatory seatbelt law was repealed by voters who considered the law an infringement of their freedom. The seatbelt safety law was later instated, but it raises the important question of what principles should guide government regulation of dangerous practice. The first rule or principle that should guide government regulation of harmful/dangerous practice must always concern the constitutionality of the law or policy. One of the main purposes of the United States Constitution is to spell out and...The end:
..... policy would result in the desired outcome. In the final comment on the topic, government regulation of dangerous practice should be guided by three fundamental principles – namely, whether the proposed law or policy is constitutional, whether it promotes happiness for the greatest number, and whether it would result in the desired outcome. Taken together, these principles certainly provide no guarantee that government regulation will work as designed. But when a proposed law or policy fails to pass one or more of these simple tests, it is a sure sign that the law or policy is inherently flawed. And this provides reasonable and convincing grounds for rejecting the proposed government attempt at regulating the underlying dangerous practice.