Ed. #100: Regulation and the Pursuit of Happiness

A "Very Special" 100th Musing edition

Happy campers

It’s the 100^th edition of these Musings, so it seems I need to write something special: something that is accessible and insightful to all readers and will provide deep meaning and energize your life.[1] At a minimum, this “Musing for the masses” will avoid using acronyms that only my mortgage industry peeps understand and refrain from discussing ongoing litigation implications.[2] I’m even going to spend some time talking about summer camp.

So, in this “Very Special” Edition of the Mortgage Musings, we are going to grapple with psychology and philosophy on how best to achieve happiness through an ordered society. Don’t worry, really, that just boils down to (again) airing my compulsion to exercise my (constitutionally guaranteed) rights to criticize the government and complain about regulatory overreach: the same compulsion which has inspired and compelled me to write most of the 99 other editions of this publication. But you’re also going to get a dose of what the Declaration of Independence called the “pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.”

More, Less, or Better?

What inspired this topic? Well, there I was, waiting with my car running in a 30 minutes-long line for Wisconsin’s state mandated bi-annual emissions inspection[3] (just emitting all those emissions the whole time) wondering, why do I rail against bad regulations (and, occasionally, bad regulators) so much? As I pondered that, I remembered that whenever I talk with Rob or Robbie Chrisman about regulation, I get some version of the question, “do we need more, less, or better regulation?”.[4] My inevitable answer, which, I gather, is largely dissatisfying to “the Roberts”, is always, “less”.

“Less” regulation, however, doesn’t mean “none”. I mean, I’m not some kind of anarcho-Libertarian[5] who is against all laws and regulations. Rather, as a grateful admirer of the power of capitalism to lift humanity from poverty, I have written (“lamented” might be a more accurate verb) about how some regulations can be essential to enable the market to operate efficiently within guardrails. But, I don’t understand the need for an emissions test on a so-called low emissions vehicle (LEV).[6]

Ridiculous regulations

Likewise, I question the whole host of other regulations that frankly overwhelm our sensibilities and prevent us from making and learning from risky decisions while living in a free and classically liberal society. I mean, in New Jersey it is illegal to pump your own gas because …, New Jersey is worried about safety?!![7] That rule alone would be enough for me to dump tea in the harbor or march on Trenton with a pitchfork and torch, but somehow New Jersians don’t seem to have the same outrage.

Meanwhile, Scott Lincicome is a libertarian Cato Institute economist whose frustration with excessive laws and regulations makes us kindred members of the same tribe.[8] His August 2025 article, How Much of Your Life (and Money) Have Dumb Rules Wasted? - The Dispatch seeking to quantify the costs of the TSA’s[9] “security theatre” shoe removal requirement was right up my alley. Thank goodness the “curtain has finally dropped” on that shoe removal idea. Anyway, Lincicome’s rant asks (as if right out of my own mouth),

“…, just how much of our lives (and how much money!) is being wasted on stuff like needless, annoying paperwork and procedures that exist just because they do or because legislators and bureaucrats are too lazy, scared, or indifferent to change them. This includes not just airport “security theater” nonsense—don’t even get me started on the TSA’s insane peanut butter rule—and the billions we waste annually on tax compliance, but plenty of other federal, state, and local hurdles that we barely notice in isolation but matter a ton in the aggregate. Just this week, in fact, I spent 10 extra minutes at the drug store waiting to get carded so I could buy “controlled” cold medicine (because, as we’ve known since 2007, the over-the-counter alternative literally doesn’t work).”

So, yeah, there I was having a Musing inspiration about excessive regulation in an emissions inspection line. I was also remembering Lincicome’s link to this impactful video showing the incredible growth of Federal regulation from the 1950s through 2013 (you can only imagine how much worse it has gotten).

Yet, whenever there is an event or problem an instinctive societal response seems to always be that the Government ought to do something about whatever it is and regulation seems to be the answer. But is it? To illustrate that further, I’m going to talk about something near and dear to my heart other than the mortgage business.

Summer camps

Some of my readers may be aware that, in addition to the home lending business, I am also highly engaged in the summer camp industry and, earlier this year, I agreed to serve on the American Camp Association (ACA)[10] Board of Directors. Since I first went to 8 week summer overnight camp as a 9 year old, camp has always been my “happy place”.

One of my primary observations about the summer camp industry (in contrast to the mortgage business) is that camps are relatively unregulated. By contrast, outrage over irresponsible mortgage lending prior to the “meltdown” led to, among many other laws intended to mandate responsible lending, state licensing, fingerprinting, background checks, and competence exams for mortgage originators. With all that regulation of the mortgage industry, one would think getting a home loan is “unsafe at any rate” and consumers are unable to protect themselves from this unscrupulous and irresponsible industry.

Operating an overnight summer camp business that houses, feeds, entertains, and otherwise cares for people’s children away from home for weeks or months, on the other hand, doesn’t have a fraction of the government regulation and oversight required to make a mortgage loan to an adult.[11] So, should the government preemptively step in to impose regulations on an entire industry that has not acted irresponsibly? You can guess my priors on that question.

Texas tragedy

In my first summer as an ACA Board member, however, I watched in horror as probably the greatest tragedy ever to strike the camp industry took the lives of 27 campers and counselors at Camp Mystic[12] in the devastating and unprecedented flash floods on the Guadelupe River in the Texas Hill Country on July 4-5, 2025. To be clear, I do not speak on behalf of the ACA,[13] but along with the entire camp community, I mourn the loss of these 27 campers and counselors[14] and still weep for their families whenever I think about it. Without question, this unprecedented loss of innocent lives demands not just empathy, but also retrospection on how to prevent such a disaster from ever happening again to another summer camp.

Empathy’s role in decisioning

Yet, empathy alone should not guide my actions as an ACA Director in response to the Texas tragedy. As championed by author and Yale and University of Toronto Professor Paul Bloom, rational compassion is a better decisioning rubric. Likewise, as I have previously written in connection with the mortgage industry, while critical for human interaction, empathy and outrage are inadequate for government policymaking. Frankly, grief and the desire for justice for a few (rather than “Justice for all”) hold similar weaknesses for decisioning.

So, as I observed the state of Texas wrestle with this summer’s disaster with regulations designed to improve camp safety, I wondered how much of that legislation was driven by empathy vs. rational compassion. While regulations imposing evacuation planning and resources to enable emergency notifications for weather events seem entirely appropriate, requiring roof ladders be placed in all cabins seems to mostly be symbolic and could result in more camper injuries than lifesaving.[15]

Safety vs. Self-determination

Everyone instinctually wants to keep their kids safe. When you send a child to school, camp, (or to the grocery store) you have to trust they will be safe. Sheltering your child with too many rules and reward structures, however, may fail to teach independence or to motivate them to become engaged citizens. Importantly, researchers have found that self-determination is what motivates kids to be engaged members of a community.

Jack Schott is a summer camp operator and vocal advocate for the camping experience. Schott recently wrote a blog post about his interview with Dr. Richard Ryan, a leading researcher on motivation. As Schott notes in his blog,

We sometimes think motivation is like a gas tank. You either have a little or a lot. But [Ryan’s] research shows there are completely different types of motivation, and some work way (and I mean waaaay) better than others. The motivation that comes from external rewards and punishments? Yeah, it might get some compliance in the short term, but it doesn’t stick. And forget about creating engaged and enthusiastic kids. Relying too heavily on rewards-based motivation is basically training kids to be like “What’s in it for me?” instead of “How can I contribute to this community?

The shift from rule-follower to community member isn’t always seamless for every kid. But it’s the difference between kids who need constant reminders about expectations and kids who are internally motivated to contribute and grow.

Could the same be true of adults in their relationship to government regulations? Do too many regulations cause adults to ask “what’s in it for me?” instead of “how can I contribute?”

Regulation and liberty

Cass Sunstein is a brilliant legal and behavioral economics scholar (among many other things)[16] and is one of the leading thinkers today regarding regulatory policy. Sunstein recently wrote an interesting (and short) piece on his Substack page entitled, Paternalism and Behavioral Economics that is helpful to frame a discussion about how people feel about use of regulation by government to limit or restrict choices (liberty).

In that article, Sunstein divided people into three broad groups when assessing use of government power to issue regulatory policies. In Sunstein’s words these are,

· coercive paternalists, who urge that behavioral findings greatly strengthen arguments for mandates and bans (and leave John Stuart Mill[17] in the dust, more or less);

· libertarian paternalists, who urge that behavioral findings point to a host of freedom-preserving interventions, such as warnings, reminders, and automatic enrollment; and

· antipaternalists, who urge that behavioral findings justify only, or at most, efforts to strengthen people’s capacities to make good choices.

Sunstein further notes that, “It is important to see that each of the three views can be taken as a dogma, or a fighting faith, or instead as a presumption or an inclination.” Sunstein is as intellectually honest about his positions as anyone, and I think his article’s framing is an entirely fair and reasonable assessment of most people’s philosophies about regulation that allows for differences of opinion and nuance.

Stop noodging me

That said, while Sunstein literally wrote the book on “libertarian paternalism” (he calls this kind of government intervention “nudges”)[18], I probably find myself closer to being an anti-paternalist with lots of libertarian paternalistic sympathies to achieve utilitarian goals. I recoil from coercive paternalism, but I don’t think nudges are necessarily a slippery slope to the “Nanny State”. Still, my priors about the dangers of government abuse of power leads me to think that encouraging and enabling too many “nudges” from government poses the danger that lawmakers and regulators will be less careful about limiting liberty than they should be (becoming “noodges”). That is, a government actor will be less restrained in limiting individual liberty when they can say, “well, it’s just a nudge, not a requirement”.

To be clear, I don’t think policymakers set out to make bad or unnecessary regulations or to punish actors they don’t like.[19] They are usually trying to address a market failure like an externality (e.g., pollution) or information mismatch leading to inefficient market outcomes (e.g., consumer protection). Sometimes, however, regulation or legislation is inspired as an empathic response to an event where symbolism can be intertwined with efficiency goals.

Balance is needed

So, I am skeptical of a society that always looks to the government to keep it “safe” and direct what it thinks are “good” choices with rules, regulations, and even nudges. Just as with motivating kids, is it better for the pursuit of happiness to live in a society that lets you learn from mistakes and failures or one in which seeks to prevent you from making those mistakes in the first place. Ultimately, this is a balance that everyone may feel differently about.

---

[1] If that seems like an overpromising heavy lift, just be glad I didn’t say it would cure cancer. But, I bet I got some folks to look at a footnote who wouldn’t do that ordinarily and that would be a good habit to develop when reading these Musings.

[2] There are many ongoing high-profile federal lawsuits worthy of discussion right now involving topics such executive power over tariffs and agency staffing, the government shutdown, voting rights, and use of the military domestically. There are also consumer class action complaints with compliance implications and others I have written about previously and a rising tide of industry antitrust and poaching disputes, but I’m not going to discuss lawsuits in this edition. Always happy to discuss my thoughts about any of it over a couple beers though.

[3] You’ll be glad to know that my 2018 Hyundai Sonata passed the test with flying colors. More accurately, it passed without incident.

[4] I think the “Roberts” ask that of every regulatory lawyer they talk to. Also, can we discuss the rules of punctuation for the sentence in the text preceding this footnote?

[5] Here’s another public service announcement to never, ever, go “full Libertarian”.

[6] That’s the only acronym you’re going to get in this edition and it’s just a Y short of spelling my last name.

[7] Insert your own joke here about how dangerous self-service gas is for people from that state vs. the other 49.

[8] Not that tribe. Well, actually, I don’t know. The “tribe” I’m talking about is people who are mostly Libertarian (but not full Libertarians see fn. 5 above) who are easily frustrated by regulations and like to complain about it.

[9] Sorry, I lied. TSA is another acronym.

[10] Dang it, another acronym. I just can’t help myself.

[11] The camp industry has internalized prudent risk management through self-regulation (including the ACA accreditation process), insurance requirements, and the legitimate concern that all camp operators have about reputation risk. Background checks and training of staff are bare minimum standards.

[12] Camp Mystic was not accredited by nor a member of ACA, but the entire camp industry has been emotionally devastated by these events.

[13] I know both ACA’s CEO and Chairman (who lost his cousin in the floods) have been outspoken in their sadness and horror over these deaths and desire to enable and support the constant improvement of camp safety generally.

[14] At least 135 people were killed by this flood event.

[15] As quoted in US News, Rhonda Roberts, the Executive Director of the Heart of Texas Camp & Retreat in Brownwood Texas said,“I believe there’s a greater safety risk for this, for these new rules, than there would be without them,” she said. “Our roofs are the last place that we want campers, and it’s not really a safe thing.”

[16] I’m pretty sure Sunstein is a member of my tribe too, but this time I mean that tribe.

[17] With this reference to Mill Sunstein suggests that the coercive paternalists are hostile to individual liberty as the basis for maximizing societal happiness (“utility” for the economists).

[18] Sunstein says nudges can be “educational” (like a warning label) or “architectural” like automatic enrollment or mandates about placement of items in a store. I am mostly concerned with architectural nudges.

[19] Then again, Rohit Chopra’s registry for contract waiver terms was just for punishment; an “enforcement by regulation” gotcha regime with no real purpose other than to punish lenders who didn’t comply.