I think we ran the experiment to know what consumer choice gets us: petrol with lead in it, and associated pollution and brain damage.
Do you have an ETA when the magical consumer choice / free market will finally solve issues of single-use plastic pollution, unrecycleability of most products, toxic e-waste poisoning children, slavery in the supply chains, etc, ?
personally I would add "environmental impact" to the list of things that justify regulation which does cover battery/electronics reuse, but then making something reusable doesn't actually mean most folks will bother
I think this the main problem: do you trust a bureaucracy(is. non-technical people working in good faith to make rules for the society) to understand the implications of products or do you trust the manufacturer to do the same. In my opinion the bureaucrat can have good intentions, but lacks technical knowledge, while the manufacturer has the technical knowledge, but has incentives to disregard safety.
Both have incentives to undermine or promote public safety and both have different avenues of accountability.
Is there actually any difference?
Nailed it. Meanwhile, there has never been an experiment with government intervention that has failed. For example, Agent Orange only existed because of consumer choice, as you astutely imply. So your point is airtight and not full of holes from every angle.
>Do you have an ETA when the magical consumer choice / free market will finally solve issues of single-use plastic pollution, unrecycleability of most products, toxic e-waste poisoning children, slavery in the supply chains, etc, ?
What's the ETA on magical government regulation fixing these problems?
I know how to fix politics using consumer choice - what if you could donate money to politicians, and whoever get the most money wins? Oh, wait..