Originally posted by Nesster The argument that a given regulation accomplishes nothing by citing a few individuals or law breakers is not a good one. Regulation of course is aimed at reducing the overall rate of something - or increasing it, depending on what's aimed for. The fact that people run red lights and get into accidents does not invalidate traffic lights.
Also, taking an example of when photography changed the world (I think for the better, libertarians probably think for the worse): W. Eugene Smith's Minamata series.
Of course industry tried all the usual tactics to allow them to dump mercury, but public outcry caused regulations which curtailed the practice. Is there still mercury dumping? Probably. Is it on the pre-regulation scale? Definitely not.
Here's another thing about many regulations: initially 'controversial' because businesses resist these tooth and nail, eventually they become accepted as common practice... Yet, even more so than individual humans, corporations (and governments) will revert unless the regulations are enforced. The fact that they tend to be so complex (as I've written before) has to do with all the law suits filed by corporations & their lawyers' continuing search for loopholes and ways around the regulations. So if businesses just followed the damn laws instead of figuring out how to bypass them, the cost of regulation would be a lot less.
There does not need to be a regulation against mercury dumping. The people who are going to do it will, regardless of the regulations. What has curtailed the activity is the fact that people can seek huge monetary damages if health or property has been harmed by the dumping. What photographers and the media did was add transparency and shine a light on the issue. The regulations are irrelevant. If you can show you suffered harm from the dumping of mercury, then you will own the company. What happens to a company that gets caught dumping (even if there are no regulations)? The outrage from the public will bankrupt the company the the owners will have their faces plastered all over the internet and TV. The punishment imposed by the public and through civil suits will dwarf any government regulation or penalty.
The internet and individuals with cameras (still & video) will do more to combat abuse than any regulation. Civil courts and free markets will impose stiffer penalties than any government regulation. Anyone remember the ABC "Prime Time" story on Food Lion back in the 90's? They showed undercover video tape of Food Lion employees repackaging expired meats and unsanitary food handling conditions. Food Lion was the fastest growing chain at that time. The public reaction was so sever it almost bankrupted Food Lion. Food Lion was non-Union and had been fighting the union for years. Once the unedited tapes were in court (Food Lion sued ABC) we see that the events were staged by employees trying to unionize the workers and footage was edited to show Food Lion in the worst possible way.
The Lion's Share ABC worked with the union to create the story and ended up paying $5,000,000.00 in damages to Food Lion. Public opinion and the free markets are much stricter than any government regulation.
The banks in the Cayman Islands are relatively unregulated (compared to American Banks) and offer no form of deposit insurance, yet people put millions in those banks. The banks in the Cayman Islands do report information to the IRS for US account holders. Why do people put millions in minimally regulated, uninsured banks? If you think it is for money laundering then you have seen too many movies. Their banks have an excellent reputation for quality investments and low risk. If that reputation were to come into question people would withdraw their money and the banks would fail. There is no need for regulations. Basic laws regarding property rights and civil liberties are all that need to be enforced.
Free markets eliminate the complexity. To use the credit rating agencies as an example. Prior to the regulations the agencies worked for the buyer and IF you wanted to hire an agency to evaluate the quality of the debt in question you could, but you did not have to. You could buy un-rated debt. Several companies developed reputations for high quality debt and they could sell on reputation. If the debt is structured so that it is too complicated for the buyer to understand they can hire a rating agency, but that adds cost and lowers the value of the debt. Sellers had an incentive to provide high quality debt that was not complex in structure. Since the credit rating agency worked for the buyer, they had every incentive to protect the buyer from buying toxic debt. How much of the current crisis could have been avoided if the current regulations had not been in place?
A Brief History of Credit Rating Agencies: How Financial Regulation Entrenched this Industry's Role in the Subprime Mortgage Debacle of 2007 - 2008 | Mercatus
You may not like my use of specific examples to prove a point, but I think it is pointless to talk is broad/vague/general terms. The real world effects are not broad/vague/general. I prefer to look at real world effects of these regulations. Rating agencies made billions, debt sellers made billions, and debt buyers/taxpayers got screwed. Who were these regulations designed to protect?