Also, removing the burden of regulations and restrictions on the economy doesn't necessarily increase the economy's value or the well-being of society.
The intrinsic unit of value provided by the economy is a restriction. This restriction is otherwise called private property. There is no economy without it. It is, by definition, a restriction. It is a right provided to an individual at the expense of a freedom that would otherwise belong to other people. A right for a landowner to fence their land comes at the expense of other people's freedom to roam or graze a herd. The former are granted a right. The latter honour a restraint: they bear a cost.
All of the other restrictions and regulations build on that foundation. Intellectual property is a restriction based on ideas. Money is a means of transferring the value of property from one person to another. Negative externalities are a means by which the obligations of property ownership are passed from owners to their neighbours, and regulations are used to prevent them from doing so.
Much of civil law is a means of managing these restrictions. All sorts of people are involved in ensuring that laws are properly made and maintained.
Removing restrictions may do two negative things: damage the value of property; or permit the transfer of the costs of ownership from an owner to their neighbour.
Might it do positive things too? Sure. But it depends on the individual matter.
There's no viable general principle that says removing restrictions is a benign thing. It simply depends upon what the restrictions are, one restriction at a time.
| 