I'm deeply bothered by the trend towards conservatism in recent years. The abuses of big government have convinced people that minimal government is the only way to go. Somehow the Democrats have managed to drop the ball on this as well, the same way that Al Gore somehow managed to avoid talking about the last 8 years of economic growth. They don't mention how the FDA does a pretty good job making sure we're safe. And if they don't do the best job, it's because they don't have enough power, not because they have too much. Ditto for the NTSB. And the FAA. These regulatory bodies have made our daily lives so much safer ovet the last 30 years, but nobody seems to remember that. And of course there's my big one, anti-trust action on the part of the government. From the oil trusts at the beginning of the 20th centuries to the breakup of AT&T in 1984, to the future (hopefully) breakup of Microsoft, the goverment has been working for our protection. Once again, if they did a less-than-perfect job, it was because they were less active than they should have been, not because they were draconian in their application of the laws. Capitalist idealists (it's not an oxymoron!) claim that the market will punish the abusive companies. The problem is, capitalism as a positive force only works when there is no oligopoly. When you have a situation like the music industry, with only five major players, bad things happen. The same thing almost happened with the American auto industry, but the government was goaded into watching them closely and the Japanese came in and kicked their butts. The worst is yet to come, however, because in many industries, barriers to entry are only increasing. It takes billions of dollars to develop and produce even a niche microprocessor. Similarly, nobody can compete against Microsoft's financial resources; the only recent challenge to their dominance in operating systems comes from one where money is irrelevant. And even if companies can compete resource-wise, restrictive intellectual property laws make it possible for one company to shut out all competitors to the detriment of consumers. When there is no choice, the market cannot operate.
All that aside, even when there is choice in the marketplace, the market wouldn't necessarily decide the right way. Consider free ISPs. Given the choice between a free ISP that tracks your actions online and a pay ISP that leaves you alone, most people would pick the former. If you explained to them the consequences and issues involved in that choice, they would agree in the abstract that they would be willing to pay a nominal fee in exchange for privacy, but they wouldn't necessarily act that way. People are very bad at translating abstract ideals into day to day action. Regulation is necessary to look ahead, to take the long view. Basic rights must be guaranteed by an extra-market power simply because it becomes too much of a bother for consumers to have to decide every time how much of their rights they are willing to give up in exchange for some material benefit. That's why it is impossible to give up some rights in court, because if you are tempted by leniency in exchange for a waiver of rights, you could be easily taken advantage of. It's better in many cases for the regulatory bodies to make one binding decision than for millions of people to make multiple decisions every day. Now, I'm not saying that regulation is the answer to everything. I strongly disagree with many parts of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but then, that law is more of a restriction on individuals than organizations. The government has had its share of foolish behavior. But by and large, government regulations have helped us far more than they have hurt us, and could do even more if people would just realize how much of us has been done already.