There are valid reasons to oppose regulations. They can be used to create barriers of entry for small businesses, for example. They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class.

That is usually the opposite because the absence of regulations usually put the smallest players in a state of dependence of some huge monopolistic groups.

Think pesticides and genetically modified plants for example.

> They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class.

That’s a very broad statement. I expect there are many cases where that is not true.

Protecting a small company's ability to pollute is not a valid reason.

We're talking about environmental regulations. It is no more good for a small business to pollute than a large one, and it's precisely the poor who are most harmed by environmental pollution.

There are valid reasons to oppose specific regulations not all.

Imagine I open a auto repair center and I perform oil changes. It would cost me money to have used oil hauled away or I could dump it down the drain. You probably support a requirement that I pay for the service.

I'm sure there are regulations that cause actual harm to small businesses that have little or no value but I wonder what percentage it would be of the total.

Ah the old "it takes longer to learn how to cut hair than it does to become a cop".

the largest unaccounted for victims of environmental degradation are our children and their children. given that we can't even keep from poisoning our own well water for our own uses today, it really does like on the whole we're failing to regulate sufficiently.

which isn't to argue that they shouldn't make sense. or that they should be used to tilt the playing field due to corruption, but on the balance claiming that we are currently overregulated is pretty indefensible.