> your logic is non-nonsensical: you attack regulation without offering an alternative or re-defining the problem

Non-sensical?

Do you really believe that the properties of regulation are affected by alternatives? (Hint: the relative merit is, but not the absolute properties.)

It's perfectly appropriate to interrupt a regulation love-fest by pointing out that it does not have the properties that its fans claim.

Do you really want to argue "we must do something, regulation is something, therefore we must regulate"?

And, there's the small matter that regulation can take many forms. For example, torts are a form of regulation.

Yet, question bureaucrats, and folks rise up.

You remember bureaucrats. They're folks with no skin in the game....

in politics relative merit is what gets things done (Hint: you can get around this by starting your own libertarian paradise on some uninhabited island, may I submit the name "jackassland" for your consideration)