Ensuring quality or limiting chances to improve

Decision making often gets surrounded by gloomy arguments of past and future. Mostly none can focus at present. We collect data that support the probable outcome from past and envision outcome. Among probable outcomes, most beneficial outcome through most feasible route gets followed. However, those who can't move on always get drawn by past. Their inability to move forward cripple them. Often regulators could get this biased perspective. Since they are concerned about loss on failure of the decision rather on gain upon success. While, those on execution role get hyper excited towards gain of success. They envision all flower but in the future. 

Any good that is necessary for human progress or necessary for survival should be under the regulation of the government. Government whether through ensuring distribution of these good by producing itself or organizing system for private players to produce and distribute always ensure that the beneficiaries should get it at highest quality at lowest possible cost. If private players can't ensure it, government should take those task by itself. However, government is run by risk averse regulators, competition may not be their interest thereby limiting best outcome. However, if only one or few private players are willing to do so, government should not let it to be in private production and distribution. Government is lesser greedy system than private players but also inefficient one. By profit motives private players get efficient, when the profit is at stake of competition they are the best producer while in collusion they are the worst punishment for society at large.

When there are number of private players who want to produce and sell goods, government's job should be that of regulators to ensure ethical practices and fulfillment of their commitments. This way best product can be produced and distributed. However, when private players demand limiting competition claiming quality, may be it is not that feasible argument. Private players who are also in the game of production are biased decision makers with self interest at front. May be using all government muscle to oust the competitor from the game is the modern sin. This inertia won't let any society to move on from the past. Competition is the solution to move forward. With appropriate government regulation via supervision alone, private players will improve thing (when they are not colluding). However, to use government to ensure monopoly in the name of quality is kind of stale food in new packaging. 

Any kind of artificial limiting is death, human aspiration is to grow and to move towards light and life. 

Monopolistic tendency to raise price by limiting competition and sell the worst product naming it is the only available hence best product is old aged disease.