Ah, the familiar ploy of privatizing profits and socializing costs.

Consider: Who will be (unavoidably) paying for the military and buffer-area which which keeps the place safe from Canadian Bear-riders? Who will eventually get stuck paying if it turns into an abandoned toxic waste-dump? The rest of us.

So.. have them put their money where their mouth is: You want freedom and noninterference? Fine: No corporation in these areas shall have the special government-gift of "limited liability."

That means if someone's no-safety-rules Nuclear Powered Airplanes startup has a very bad oopsie, the bankrupt NPA's remaining debts (for injuries, deaths, property-damage, and pollution-cleanup) must be paid by the investors who who cause the disaster. "Personal accountability", right? Bigger rewards, bigger risks. What self-professed lover of economic freedom could possibly object?

It's frustrating because it often seems like a lot of regulation is scoring own goals but inevitably initiatives to "fix" it are as you describe - money grabs at the expense and well being of the general public.

It would be nice if we could try out some genuinely different frameworks that were well thought out instead of transparent attempts to abscond on responsibilities.

There's an interesting (read: hypocritical) contrast here when you consider how the same administration is busy illegally attacking "sanctuary cities" and states, in revenge for them simply minding their own business--instead of doing freebie immigration work that is literally not their responsibility.

If there's one good thing that's come of the drama it's that I've witnessed state agencies asking themselves if they actually need certain information. Never thought that would happen in my lifetime.

Please call one of them Night City