The thing is that competition is usually the best form of regulation, if a private entity offers a product nobody wants they will not be around for long. Internet access is not a competitive realm. We have one phone company and one cable company both offering overpriced service to localities of nearly all of the country. If they offer a product that is sub par, who can the customer turn to?
Would that were always true, re competion. History shows otherwise. Without regulation, the foxes truly find ways to steal our chicken coops.
The pure paradigm works when the structure affords we the consumers being the arbiters of the value of a given item and the survival of a given vendor.....for me, eBay is the ultimate example.
But ebay is the exception.
Again, what MS spends on fighting anti trust litigation exceeds the budget of a small country.
Then, there is the most pernicious of all: globalization. Wherein business j exploit the cheapest labor on the planet.....thus, eroding standards and quality of life, forget the health of a given economy, given that (and the tax base) owes to a healthy middle class in not third world countries.
Now, a pair of Jordans costs Nike around $15 to make. who profits? The consumer? Not so much.
Most reprehensible example: Walmart. Always hell bend on circumventing regulations the nuclear entity of collective bargaining so many gave their lives to put in place......regard the net result to workers and their capacity to help grow back a healthy economy here in America.
The end, never ever justifies the means. The regulations are all about the means.
I rest my case.
Read history. Perot got it right.