I'm guessing the argument is that if the cost that the customer bears for such regulated audits is greater than the refund they get from it then the customer actually lost money.

That sounds kind of like me complaining about the cost of my car insurance because for 10 years I didn't have any accidents.

Seems difficult to know the benefit of such regulation without hindsight.

Secondly, businesses face market pressures to provide low cost to customers (isn't that the whole argument for the free market?) therefore passing the cost to the customer should be weighed against other potential inefficiencies -- they might even have to take a smaller cut of profit!

Funny how so many people can never justify the cost of doing business when it comes to protecting consumers.

Whats your recourse to getting reimbursed for a regulation that is too expensive?

Superior to getting reimbursed when there is no regulation whatsoever.

See: Equifax data breach costs shouldered by the American public who have no resource provided by regulation

Superior? Which recognized bad regulations did you get your money back from?

That's the point. Regulation > No regulation. We're just arguing the amount of said regulation.

I don't think you are reading my comments.

You say that without regulation you wouldn't have a recourse to get your money back on bad behavior from private companies, but if a regulation harms you economically, you will never get your money back anyway. Regulation does not give you a recourse to get your money back. In fact, even worse. The state can never make amends on its mistakes.

Let me twist an analogy.

I don't care if law enforcement is more expensive than just absorbing the cost of crimes. I want the rule of law enforced, even if it's more expensive.

Thats fine. You go your way and let other people go their way and everyone gets what they want.

That's not at all true and you know it.

I can only answer what is said to me. He said he cared more about the law than the economic results, and I provide a solution for his desires and for the people that don't share them.

I, maybe like you, suspect that he wants others to follow the laws he wants, which is an entirely different proposition.

This is the exact attitude that has resulted in the war on drugs.

Political apathy and racially motivated legislation resulted in the war on drugs.

Don’t want the law enforced? Change the law.

> Don’t want the law enforced? Change the law.

Yes, the law should be changed, but not because drugs aren't bad. But because the high costs of enforcement (direct and indirect) have been worse than the lower costs of people being free to get high.

By your logic, we should continue to ignore all those costs because drugs are still a negative to society and the moral law must be enforced no matter the enforcement cost.