'Even if that means slower economic growth' matters. Support more regulation in specific domains where current regulation is inadequate. Would not endorse regulation indiscriminately regardless of growth costs. 'More regulation regardless of growth costs' is too blunt, though 'more regulation in many important domains' is correct.

Regulation can reduce harm related to environmental damage, labor practices, and financial risk. Economic growth is not the sole metric of societal success. Slower growth may be acceptable if it results in safer and more equitable outcomes.

More regulation of business can improve fairness and safety, but excessive regulation can choke growth. The strongest case is for targeted, not blanket, rules — rejects 'even if growth slows' framing.

Unchecked economic growth often comes at the expense of labor rights, consumer safety, and environmental integrity. Regulations ensure that businesses internalize the costs of their operations rather than shifting them onto the public or future generations. Prioritizing the 'quality' of growth and protection of the common good is a more sustainable approach to governance than…

Growth is not the only legitimate economic goal. Regulation is justified when it protects workers, consumers, privacy, competition, financial stability, and the environment. Slower growth can be acceptable if it prevents exploitation, systemic risk, or long-term harm.