The above screenshot is taken from Futurama. Lrrr and his wife, Ndnd, rulers of the planet Omicron Persei 8, are aliens from a warlike race. Violence permeates their culture. While Lrrr himself is not particularly warlike (he half-heartedly invades Earth in one episode just to stop his wife from nagging him), the culture still is ingrained in him and much of his confusion regarding Earth is why it is not more warlike (another quote I could have chosen is when he is watching an episode of the in-show spoof of Ally McBeal called Jenny McNeil, he asks “if McNeil wants to be taken seriously, why does she not simply tear the judge’s head off?”).
Lrrr’s confusion stems from the two different cultures of Earth and Omicron Persei 8. What is “foolish” behavior for him is normal behavior for the people of “ancient” Earth (Futurama takes place in the opening decades of the 3,000’s, so “ancient Earth” to him is the 90’s and 2000’s for us). For Lrrr, there is a benefit to demonstrating strength before (or to) friends. For the people of Earth, it is a cost.
This simple fact makes the job of the economist difficult when it comes to regulation. The typical Econ 101 story for regulation is to do a cost-benefit analysis and, if the costs are less than the benefits, then regulation may be justified. But this seemingly straightforward process is, as we can see above, actually quite complex. What counts as a cost and benefit, as well as the relative values of those costs and benefits, are subjective. It depends on the person observing the situation. For us, Ross’ behavior is normal and praiseworthy. For Lrrr, the exact same behavior is confusing and foolish. And Earth observer might propose a regulation that rewards people who act like Ross. And Omicron Persei 8 observer might propose legislation that punishes people who act like Ross.
Ultimately, the determination of regulatory behavior comes down to the subjectivity of the observer. What this means is “optimal” regulation (such as a tariff, tax, wage, etc), while possible in theory, is practically impossible. What may be an optimal tax for one observer may be too high/low for another and may be a subsidy for a third.
This subjectivity is why I adhere to a status quo bias and a presumption of liberty. Legislative and legal changes should not be done casually, and even with great thought and analysis, should be undertaken only very carefully.