Whoever was subject to EPA regulations clearly didn't want to be regulated, because the agency has been gutted during this administration.

Regulation is not as black and white as you are painting. Plenty of regulations do good things, because people can't be trusted to act with a social conscience when profit is their motive.

> Regulation is not as black and white as you are painting. Plenty of regulations do good things, because people can't be trusted to act with a social conscience when profit is their motive.

Indeed. I think the argument ventured is that it is burdensome to the point that only the big established players can bear

> Plenty of regulations do good things, because people can't be trusted to act with a social conscience when profit is their motive.

This is one of those sentences that sound logical, until you start thinking about it.

The fact that people sometimes do bad things in no way proves that regulations do good things. If anything, it's an indication that regulations might also be bad, since they are made by people.

Often the same people who are being regulated, believe it or not...

The alternative is no regulation, which I can't see ending up as anything other than a chaotic profit and power-seeking free-for all that does no favours for the average citizen that isn't part of the capitalist class.

Who do you think has the most influence on the regulations?

The powerful or the powerless?

This is such nonsense.

Some regulation can form regulatory capture, but other regulation can enforce an open, accessible marketplace.

Let's see how Facebook likes antitrust regulation.