I typed this at the end after having made the post, but moved it to the front:

***The final four paragraphs are probably the most important points I've made on this subject. They gets to the heart of why my position is what it is. They are textbook economics and they gets to the heart of why economists are intense proponents of free markets, why most economists favor deregulation in most ways, and why world renowned economists like Milton Friedman say things like this famous line attributed to him: "if you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara desert, in fives years there'd be a shortage of sand."

Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
What's missing from this? It can't just be individual actions determine group actions.
Individuals act. Even large corporations are made up of the actions of each of its individuals. Economists have found no other way to mathematically represent economic behavior.

And, surely some regulations are of great benefit to society. I'm in no position to protect myself from fraud, for example.
Standards set through free markets with regards to fraud would be of even greater benefit to society. Standards set by governments regarding a large number of regulations are quite detrimental to society. The reason for this goes back to the different types of markets identified in economics. The idea that governments should set regulations necessarily means that the regulations exist in a monopolistic market, and the idea that private entities should regulate amongst themselves necessarily means that regulations exist in a monopolistic competition market.

Monopolistic market and monopolistic competition market are the technical names of the market types learned in ECON 101. Monopolistic markets benefit only a few at the expense of many by creating scarcity and increasing prices. Governments are this kind of market, and when you look at the sectors of economies that governments regulate, it makes sense that governments are indeed this kind of market since the sectors have much greater scarcity and higher prices than sectors in freer markets. Another element of monopolistic markets is that they aren't conducive to innovation; instead they're actively inhibiting of innovation. This means that once a monopolistic market is set, it tends to stay that way for a long, long time. This dynamic is evident in government regulation, as it should be since governments are monopolistic markets.

Monopolistic competition markets make up the majority of other types of sectors. Electronics, plumbing, publishing, clothing, restaurants, are just a handful of examples of monopolistic competition markets. They're "monopolistic" because their goods and services are differentiated. Of the several characteristics that describe monopolistic competition, the main element that gives it the "competition" and thus distinguishes it from monopolistic exclusively is the market has low barriers to entry and exit of producers. While entry and exit is affected by several elements, the chief determinant is regulation by governments.

The other type of market is "perfect competition." They're rare, and exist for things like wheat, where products are not differentiated. In Utopia, all goods and services would exist in perfect competition markets, but the best that modern civilization can do now (and will be able to do for probably at least a few centuries) is turn as many of its monopolistic markets into monopolistic competition markets.