In a perfect world there would be no need to have anyone establish minimum equipment requirements and enforce it as a law, complete with checks by law enforcement and penalties for non-compliance. In this perfect world people would seek out knowledgeable individuals and credible sources and use them to determine what the community consensus is for minimum equipage, And then they would, as a matter of duty, good citizenship, and good conscience, heed that advice and do whatever is necessary to meet that minimum standard.

We don't live in a perfect world. People seldom seem to use common sense. Otherwise sane people often do not bother to do basic research on what minimal standards might be. When they do many of them will either disregard any advice or simply fail to make an effort to meet the standard. Often talking a good story about being independent and rugged individualists right up to the point they get into trouble. Then it is all whining and griping that people don't drop everything and come out and rescue them. Inside many a loudmouth there is a wimp.

I'm not very familiar with a lot of specific minimal equipment standards but a few things seem clear to me. First, minimum equipment standards are not new. During the gold rush the RCMP was stopping people who couldn't show the minimum equipment, roughly 2000 pounds, in 1898.

Second, the standard are typically so minimal as to be laughable. The minimums for watercraft in the US are so weak that anyone not meeting the standard should really be hauled off as insane and a hazard to themselves and others instead of just being ticketed.