Nobody likes regulations that impinge on their freedom to live in way they want to live.

But what are regulations? Depends upon who you talk to. Overall, I see “regulations” encompassing a wide range of rules, standards and laws that govern behavior and procedures across various fields, including politics, finance, biology, sports, and self-regulatory practices in various industries. Each context may emphasize different aspects of regulation, but the core idea remains the same: to establish order and compliance within a system.

One of the regulations I regularly disobey, along with most of the other drivers on I-91, is the 65 miles-per-hour speed limit. I also notice that the regulation “enforcers” (our state police) are permitting me to exceed the speed limit by 5 miles-per-hour.

I have more than a few resident regulations I must observe to live in my condo community. This ranges from a monthly condo fee to obtaining permission from our governing board to make changes to my condo and yard.

Then there is our City Council’s recent action to “simply use” the long established Roberts Rules of Order regulations “to enforce rude or uncivil behavior.”

Now, I don’t know about you, but I’m getting fed up with the charges that hold capitalism accountable for everything that’s wrong in America from ever-increasing wealth disparity to our nation’s inadequate response to the climate crisis that we the people have caused.

I want to ask what other economic system would the anti-capitalism crowd recommend that would make us both fiscally, socially and environmentally healthy?

Capitalism has, on a number of previous occasions, worked wonders for our American middle-class way of life. Those occasions were made possible when capitalism was governed by government regulations (including taxes) that also included our public welfare along with economic stability.

Many sectors of the business world have long complained about government regulation, denouncing rules as impediments to profits, economic efficiency, and job creation. Many firms have sought loopholes, moved operations abroad, or violated antitrust laws as they attempted to skirt regulations.

In reality, American businesses have both prospered and suffered due to regulations and our complicated tax code. The relationship between a firm and the government can be either collaborative or adversarial, depending on specific circumstances. We have a number of examples of that today. They range from the enormous procurement of military equipment to the Biden administration’s executive order and advance notice of proposed rulemaking to regulate data transactions between U.S. persons and entities from countries of concern, such as China and Russia. This regulatory move aims to protect Americans’ sensitive personal data from being exploited by foreign adversaries for espionage and other malicious activities. This regulatory approach has created tension as it imposes new controls on data transactions, potentially affecting companies involved in data transfer and processing.

History shows that:

■Government regulation of the U.S. economy has expanded enormously over the past century, prompting complaints that interventions impede growth and efficiency.

■Proponents of intervention say it’s necessary to mitigate the adverse impacts of unregulated commerce, which can include environmental damage and labor abuse.

■Regulations can also support businesses, such as when they provide financial assistance or patent protection.

Congress passed the first antitrust law in 1890 and followed that with periodic changes in corporate tax rates and increasingly complex regulations governing business. The business community has generally opposed regulations that it thinks impede operations and profitability. A common conservative Republican political complaint is that we are “over regulated.”

But history also shows that there are good reasons for regulation. In pursuit of profit, businesses have damaged the environment, abused workers, violated immigration laws, and defrauded consumers. Proponents say that is why publicly accountable elected officials are in charge of regulation in the first place.

Vice President Harris addressed a packed room at the U.S. embassy in London last fall. She was in town for the Global Summit on AI Safety and was giving a speech the night before the event kicked off. On stage, flanked by American flags, Harris’ sense of gravity was palpable.

“Just as AI has the potential to do profound good, it also has the potential to cause profound harm,” Harris said. Without mincing words, she said the way to deal with that harm was to regulate Big Tech.

Our next president said “History has shown, in the absence of regulation and strong government oversight, some technology companies choose to prioritize profit over the well-being of their customers, the safety of our communities, and the stability of our democracies.”

John Bos began writing his “Connecting the Dots” column for the former Shelburne Falls West County Independent in 2013 before moving to Greenfield in 2020. He is a contributing writer for Green Energy Times and his op-ed columns have been published in the Springfield Republican, Daily Hampshire Gazette, Brattleboro Reformer, the Athol News and the Montague Reporter. Questions and comments may be sent to john01370@gmail.com.