"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

... I tend to lose it when people make foolish caveats especially ones
that are logical fallacies such as "without all this regulation we'd be
in (insert Armageddon class crisis)".

...or "without all this regulation we'd be in (insert free market
Utopia)."

Gee!! I've been a student of free markets (Chicago, Austrian, Hoover
under Sowell, Georgetown under Williams) for 25 years and I don't recall
any of them making anything even remotely similar to that claim. If
anything, it claims the opposite and refers to it as "chaotic" and a
great struggle to stay competitive.

As I'm sure you know, I'm not speaking of serious free market thinkers,
but rather the simplistic knee jerks who imagine that we'd have plenty of
cheap gasoline with no downside consequences if we simply eliminated
environmental protection regulations. My point was that such black/white
thinking is common on both sides of the environmental protection issue.

Well, it certainly is on the environmental side. Which "serious
environmental thinkers" have posited that many regulations are overdone? The
Free Market is NOT anarchy. Their position is market dictates and is
supported by tort law if necessary.

I guesstimate you're old enough to remember the old "phosphates" issue from
the early 60's. Well, long before regulations on phosphates were in place,
Proctor & Gamble and others came up with alternatives. It took only
publicity to get most in gear and P&G did well by announcing they were
changing their formulations. Their competitors had to keep up.

You are aware, I would guess, that much environmental regulation is
supported by business, not for the general benefit, but to quash
competitors, or for other self-directed benefits. The example I used of coal
fired power plants is one; the manufacturer of scrubbing equipment was a BIG
supporter. Theirs was not the best solution, but it was the political
cronyism solution.