Read my sources and tell me this is not a consistent problem. Oakland just experienced a similar tragedy.

> "This is a typical refrain.."
Saying this is a common refrain doesn't make it false. It just shows that you have no counter argument...

> "Of course, 90% of regulations have nothing to do with "safety" and everything to do with sustaining the bureaucracy that created them...
Do you have any actual support for this premise? Read the thesis I cited, read almost legislative history for any safety regulation and you will see regulators citing specific data on harm to safety and how the regulation would improve safety. For that matter google a basic traffic study for an intersection and you will see the same type of analysis. Please don't pretend that regulators and law makers don't give a shit or try to do their jobs well; our institutions, and the people that run them do care and to a good job. I think the progress humanity is better now that it was when these institutions did not exist. They are not perfect, but the cynical view that they are solely focused on preserving their own position is not consistent with easily verifiable evidence of their intent expressed in writing. I would also note that many government employees could make more in the private sector which implies they are incentivized by some other means.

Further, you have the causality exactly backwards. Regulations and related bureaucracy are created to address a problem, and will continue to exist as long as that problem exists. There were no nuclear regs/bureaucrats before there was nuclear technology. Should we get rid of the city fire department the second there isn't a fire in a city? Or the military the minute we are not at war?

However, I will acknowledge that you are right that bureaucracy can become entrenched, and we should protect against that by insuring proper legislative, judicial and executive oversight. We should also set up other necessary checks and balances, and create cultural norms that prevent individual and systematic corruption. Your answer, to just eliminate regulations, wont solve this problem it will just shift the power and corruption to the private bureaucracy of corporations.

> "Are you really under the impression the competitive advantage of AirBnB comes from ignoring the fire code?..." Yes, it is my position that AirBnB has a cost advantage relative to hotels because it doesn't have to (i) comply with regulations, including but not limited to, fire regulations, (ii) pay taxes to compensate for the maintenance of government provided infrastructure that experiences increased wear and tear as result of higher traffic and use of public services (like fire and ambulances), (iii) doesn't have to cover liability insurance for injury experienced buy guests because it doesn't own the property.

> "You're making two false assumptions, one is that most regulations... have a "clear rationale"..." Read the court cases and legislative sessions where these regulations are debated in depth and tell me that there isn't a "clear rationale" when they are enacted. They often have detailed statistical reports.

> "...second...that regulations that appear to have clear rationales to some self-interested regulatory group actually do. Most people, including regulators, don't...look beyond first order costs..."

What evidence do you have to support that regulators don't look beyond first-order costs? Or are you just making that up?

You are right that some regulations have unintended consequences; and when that happens, regulators should collect data, design a superior regulation and change it. That happens all the time and I would support such a process. What is your alternative? To get rid of all regulation and only focus on maximizing utility? That would result in an absurd outcome where there is no law and there are not enforceable contracts because every law and every contract imposes a cost to utility of some party.

Let's get one thing straight, I am not arguing all regulation is good. I am arguing that if society has determined that a regulation is necessary, then ALL parties should follow the same rules, that's it. If society revises a regulation in light of unintended costs, then great.

> "the unlimited car..."
You are ignoring the purpose of my argument. My point is that pretending like AirBnB / Uber are superior to traditional competitors because they offer better service rather than competing unfairly by ignoring regulations (and their associated costs) is like saying a car with an unlimited speed limit is faster than on that has to obey 40mile/hour; it is ignoring the essential question which are: which car will win a race with the same rules. If commerce is a competition, companies need to compete with the same rules or we are guaranteeing victory for anyone that breaks the law.