> Is a societal rule against, say, polluting waterways also not a regulation? Absolutely. Societal rules recognizing the rights of property owners would deem p

> Is a societal rule against, say, polluting waterways also not a regulation? Absolutely. Societal rules recognizing the rights of property owners would deem pollution as a trespass and violation of property rights. Unfortunately 19th century courts gave in to the wealthy businesses and essentially voided that societal rule in favor of a kind of Coasian analysis of pollution. > How exactly do you draw this line and why is that line more natural than others? Societal rules when you break them down are obvious to people and reflect how most people live their day to day life. It is typically when the basic societal rules are first voided in favor of something else, that government regulation is considered. In such cases it makes more sense to just restore the base societal rule. > Is the idea of a division between "societal rule that isn't a regulation" and "societal rule that is a regulation" even coherent? Sure. As I replied to someone else, this is a fallacy in equating government regulation with the will of society. They are not always equivalent.