Mainly thinking about this because of some of the comments in this post here, but I do think while what we currently have right now is way too much regulation.
Some examples of 'good regulation' in my opinion would be the existence of drivers' licenses, 'right to repair' laws, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and building codes.
While some notable 'bad regulation' is anything to do with 2A restrictions and the modern health care industry.
Overall, I'm just trying to gauge what is good vs bad regulation.
I think a lot of regulation exists because in modernity it's extremely difficult to punish large actors who cause harm. Because of that, we have a lot of regulation so as to make it extremely difficult to cause harm. Because ultimately it's the only tool we have at our disposal to reduce the probability of occurrence.
With the most recent vaccine we saw the effects of getting rid of a lot of the regulations: it's not as safe/effective as most vaccines are, and since it's impossible to punish the manufacturers for that we probably need to bring that regulation back.
So I guess my answer to that question is "we probably have as much as we need, but if we want to need less we need to tip the scales toward being more able to punish wrongdoing/harm"
Percent revenue fines with hard minimums would hurt any firm and larger firms with more overhead the most. The reason why that isn't done is because it would actually hurt. Banks regularly break the law because the penalties for getting caught are lower than the benefits of shiy like signing people up for accounts without their knowledge. If bad behavior brings in more than it costs then the fines are just a cost of doing business, not a punishment.
Floggings would also hurt.
You cannot flog an incorporeal entity
You can flog the executives in charge of it.