2 things:
first, I think the idea that the idea that laws don't deter crime is ridiculous. Laws are supposed to regulate a civil society. Most laws on the book are not about crime, they are about actions between parties. Sometimes those parties are represented by the state. Fishing regulations allow the state to represent all other parties (like tax payers, other fishermen, boaters and divers). The size limit on fish like striped bass and lobster are there to ensure the continued availability of those resources to all parties. If you live near a fracking well and you feel that well might endanger the safety of your drinking water, the laws are
supposed to be written so that you can have your dispute mediated by the government, either through a regulatory agency or courts, rather than having you go over and "settle the score" with the guy working the rig. If your neighbor has a tree that is brushing up against the side of your house, the law allows you to protect your interests through a non-violent set of rules that define responsibility. Some of the laws rub people the wrong way, but it allows me to get along with my neighbors.
There was a company that wanted to open an industrial quarry in my town. I would have torn up open space next to a park and required 200,000 truck loads of gravel removed over several years.... 8 round trips of monster trucks sun up to sundown 7 days a week. The laws allowed for residents to have public hearings to decide if that was acceptable to the community and would protect our property rights. With those hearings the land owners were allowed explain the value of the project to the community and what they would do to protect our rights and explain how after the quarrying they would restore the land and donate the restored land and artificial lakes to the town. Because everyone had a say, the quarry was blocked and the town eventually bought the land from the developer to cover what he spent to get the land. In some places this type of dispute might have involved a group of Pinkertons against some local vigilantes.
Second, we are discussing laws and not the democratic process. If you take the Washington State giant octopus battle it shows how democracy works. A spectrum of people had differing view on what limits should be set on the harvesting of octopi. There was a public and open debate about what should be done, both in the media and in public hearings. The media aired a variety of opinions and views and different stake holders were able to educate the public and the government about their concerns. At the end of the debate, the rules were better defined to protect the rights of everyone without having NWGratefulDiver beating the tar out of some stupid kid. Stupid Kid get to go on with his life intact (if not his reputation). The public (partly divers) are more aware of the issue and fishermen can continue to hunt octopi with a few restrictions, but respecting the rights of others to enjoy the animals in a different non-culinary way.
Laws written behind closed doors or secretly influence by big money poison that system. The US tea-party, while the aims are sincere have been getting a disproportionate say in the public debate because of big donors like the Coke brothers and the Super-PACs. Commercial interests like big energy and can and have played the same game. When the gov't wanted to limit the ability of food stamps to pay for sodas, big soda formed a front group named something like "consumers for free choice" to air ads against the measure. Big money has also tainted the debate over things like climate change, spending millions to say that it is unproven when the reality is there is overwhelm evidence that it has been occurring and that the current trends in change are perfectly in line with computer models set up in the last decade.
Part of the value of a laws in a democracy is the system in which they are made. Labelling regulation as bad is like saying color is ugly. Some are, sure, to much of any particular one may ruin something. But the idea of color as having to be good or bad isn't realistic. Lower speed limits saved lives, when they were raised, so were the number of fatalities. Ignoring that is ridiculous, but there is a mid point where people will find acceptable risk.
You get what you elect. A narrow minded, self-interested, poorly educated public gets exactly that when they go to the polls.
I am aware that I am in the minority in some of these discussions but it wouldn't be fair to my friends here not to voice my opinion, because even though you may not agree, at least you can see where I am coming from and hopefully respect that.
“Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive.”
―
Theodore Roosevelt
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
-- Thomas Jefferson
