It is common to see a small crowd around two angry men (sometimes women) in the middle of a busy road. Sometimes, the angry voices lead to fisticuffs. And on rare occasions, a gun is pulled out and used. Other than the victory of brawn over brains, it is the lack of a process to sort out the differences between drivers that causes altercations on the road. A good insurance system that will evaluate the damage and get the person who was at fault to pick up the tab from his insurance company ensures civil behaviour on roads after an accident in mature economies.
One of my favourite sets of slides in my workshops on regulation in the retail financial sector is the one on choice. I begin with a slide with one bar of soap on it. Obviously some choice is needed. The next one has two bars and some smiley faces. Better. Next has six, even better. More smiles. The last slide has a wall full of soap cakes of different brands and a woman stands perplexed in front. This slide always gets a gasp from the audience because it brings home the point that there is a limit to the benefit of choice. Anybody who has grappled with deciding between still, sparkling and regular water will understand what I mean. Water was supposed to be water, and then the choice guys got to it as well. At what point does choice stop being a good thing?