My point was 1) the government has a role in product definition moreso than regulation, and that one regulation might do the work of 10,000 other ones.
I'll stand by that, but congrats on calling me out. If I were suggesting an _additional_ regulation, you would have nailed it.
But I was not. I was suggesting replacing about 5,000 pages with two sentences. Different thing entirely. I liked and sympathized with the rant, though.
Be careful you don't accidentally sound like the guy the OP was talking about: the person who just wants to tear it all down with some kind of blind faith that no structure at all is needed. Ever since the first markets were set up, there has been structure, provided for either by the traders or some external party. Product definition allows the maximum amount of freedom with the fewest rules. People can trade any way they want, but they deserve a simple and clear label for the thing they're trading -- which is not the current situation. I'd argue 99.9% of the people flying have no idea at all of the trade they made when they gave up their money for a ride somewhere. That complexity and obfuscation is an even bigger enemy than overregulation.
ADD: If I don't know what the hell I'm doing when I participate in a market, how could you possibly argue that regulations were either good or bad? They're impenetrable. No matter what side you come down on politically, that's way fucked up.