Well, yes, I am for government/legal regulation. But, not necessarily command-and-control style. If the law simply properly provided for remedies, as you have mentioned, it would be fine. Strict liability for the harms of your pollution and all that.
But, there *is* a system of regulation, and it has been challenged many times since the first agencies were set up and it ain't going away. Rather than advocating ripping the house down and starting anew, which almost no one will go for, I am trying to work within the existing system and deal with changes I can actually hope to make. So, please don't confuse me with pro-regulation. While I too have pipe dreams of a more efficient and smaller government, I recognize them as pipe dreams and simply try to concern myself with what I see as more do-able.
And, the stack test is a good point. I could talk about ways the rules could be modified and simplified to alleviate that problem, while still making the overall rules *simpler,* but I know, I know, you don't want any rules at all. It is more a difference in approach than a difference in goal that you and I have. Or, maybe a difference in the *extent* of our goal rather than the *type.*
Computers are end-consumer products. We are talking about inputs to the production process. Also, computers are some of the lowest-polluting things out there - IF you don't count all those old motherboards-made-into-clipboards-and-clocks.
