Your comment seems to presuppose that all regulations are responses to abuses of the commons. Even if one were to grant that notion -- and I don't -- it is sti

Your comment seems to presuppose that all regulations are responses to abuses of the commons. Even if one were to grant that notion -- and I don't -- it is still possible that the treatment is worse than the disease. Are you just reflexively defending the concept of regulation generally, or do you have a specific defense for the regulations maligned? To my ears, the only "intellectual twaddle" is the shallow implication that the author hasn't considered that sometimes regulations are there for a reason. The author surveys relevant research, highlights some key effects, and recommends specific reforms. You quote "the commons" as if the author didn't also have Hardin as required reading in undergraduate economics.