Is the regulatory choice a tradeoff between safety or “breaking a few eggs” via free markets? The logic of allowing for free and unhampered markets is compelling.
I've always said that I would support free markets even if if the allegations about them being more dangerous or impoverishing were true. It sure is nice, though, that no such tradeoffs seem to actually exist.
When we look into the statist claim that regulations make consumer products safer, it turns out that the market mechanism of insurance is more preventive than the post hoc mechanism of government fines.