Our regulations are a problem, mostly not because of what they're trying to do, but because they tell us how to do things instead of telling us what to accomplish (or avoid). A better model to follow would be criminal law, which clearly spells out what to avoid doing. By "criminalizing" our regulations, everyone (except the regulators) would win: the regulations would be relatively easy to write and understand, and wouldn't need updating very often; they would be short; by concentrating on "what" instead of "how," the regulations would create a climate enabling innovation, instead of today's innovation-crushing impact.

Here's an example:

New Jersey Statutes – Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice – 2C:11-2 Criminal homicide

a. A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or, under the circumstances set forth in section 2C:11-5, causes the death of another human being.

b. Criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter or death by auto.

L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:11-2, eff. Sept. 1, 1979. Amended by L.1979, c. 178, s. 20, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.

Here is the reference.

The definition of murder leaves little to question. It doesn't need to be updated very often. The statute does not tell you how to avoid murdering someone — it just tells you what murdering is, and leaves it to you to avoid doing it.

Think about it: with murder defined in this way, we don't need loads of regulators or regulations that somehow always seem to let the truly guilty walk away. Of course, we do need a criminal justice system to track murderers down, catch them and put them to trial.

Short and sweet! … uhhh, well, anyway it's short for sure.