Interesting thoughts. However, I would disagree on an important point: the STATED purpose of the EPA -- i.e., the intention, from the point of view of government might be to deal with unfairly externalized costs imposed on the rest of us by industry (mainly in the way of air/water pollution, but including other things as well). But that isn't what it, in fact, does. What it actually does is to increase overall costs on everyone by hamstringing industry, adopting one-size-fits-all regulation (such as the issue on air pollution from eastern coal vs cleaner western coal, and the idiotic requirement that all plants, irrespective of the kind of coal they burn, install "scrubbers").
I haven't read your book yet, but I take a Coasian approach: the best way to internalize costs that are now externalized is to expand the institution of private property rights.
Actually, it's worse than that. Regulations are designed for all sorts of purposes, from picking winners and losers in the marketplace to sweetening out bond purchases so that the Fed can keep robbing domestic holders of hard assets "without consequence." It's no accident that the bulk of our environmental laws were instituted immediately after the collapse of the Brettonwoods agreement.
Take a look at the stuff on the site. If it interests you, let me know and I'll send you a pdf.
I haven't read your book yet, but I take a Coasian approach: the best way to internalize costs that are now externalized is to expand the institution of private property rights.
Correct, within limits. The rule of law is important with regard to contracts, articles of incorporation, and rigorous prosecution with heavy penalties for fraud. This is where Natural Law competition comes in, as people in different places impress different evaluations upon their particular attributes.