There has been no proof that this actually stems terrorism or criminality. Not only is there absolutely no empiric case put forward, but neither has anyone even bothered to explain how it could in theory stop terrorism. The vast majority of terrorists probably don't communicate over plaintext email about how they're totally going to attack this thing, yo.

Why do you say it failed miserably? Compared to what? Why do you think the conditions of that time were a result of legislation being insufficient as opposed to quality of life simply being lower in that period of time?

By the same logic I can say that not having minimum wage in the 12th century was the reason why people were suffering. It's entirely true there wasn't a minimum wage at that time either, but it completely ignores that: - It would have been impossible to implement during that period because of the way the job market worked and because of the technology of that time. - Their suffering is attributable to other things than the lack of legislation.

Until advances in technology makes safety regulations and safety equipment cheap, legislating them means putting people out of a job because the employer cannot pay for all of that, so they can't operate their business anymore. Have you ever considered that perhaps that was the case in the early half of the 20th century?

As far as I can tell society and the market does all the heavy lifting and then the government comes and enacts laws for things that were already becoming safer and better. Graphs like this are what lead me to the conclusion I've mentioned:

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/assuming-yo...