> But governmental regulation, selectively applied, can also be at
> least a partial solution, to the extent it can help keep market
> predators from doing A, B, and C above.
I would postulate that this is probably nigh impossible due to the human nature of the legistators/regulators themselves. In other words, it's impossible to prevent market predators for using government to their benefit.
Right, in reality, government regulation is the cheapest way to make he public pay for the costs while keeping the profits.
However, those who propose government regulation seem to not perceive government as anything other than an objective benevolent force, and when they are presented with evidence of government being corrupt, they blame the corporations for corrupting them.
Obviously the government does not 'become corrupt' because of the corporations, but for the most part the corporations are the people with the deepest pockets to lobby legislators/regulators. The more money there is to be made by being a stooge for a specific industry (or single corporation) the more likely there is that at least one legislator/regulator will become their champion.
I postulate that if there were less (or no) corporate lobbying of legislators/regulators, then there would be significantly less corruption. Blaming the corporations for corrupting the government, while naive, isn't that far from the mark.
The essence of a free market relies on the enforcement of property and contract laws, which requires government enforcement. The alternative is local fiefdoms run by robber barons, and we know that doesn't work.
Government is the worst way of regulating and enforcing a free market, except for everything else that's been tried.
