You have a common sense view of "regulation equals safety equals good"
I would say my view is more nuanced: Some regulations equals a particular level of safety which may be good depending on the costs. I fully realize that a lot of regulations are bad and too costly - for example, the TSA.
You seem to have the view that any regulation equals cost equals bad. The problem with relying on the market in all cases is that 1) there is asymmetrical information (e.g. I don't know what chemicals they are using to frack, so I can't, as a market agent, correctly price natural gas) and 2) the market doesn't always price externalities correctly.
That wouldn't happen in the first place.
Sure it would. Companies and people will always take shortcuts to save costs. Look at Deepwater. The contractor used sub-standard practices in creating the cement casing. Now, BP has paid out billions in claims, but after the lawyers take their cut, I'm doubtful that the true cost of the oil spill will be recouped by those affected. It's virtually impossible to calculate the true cost to tourism, fishing, the environment, etc., so any settlement between BP and individuals or BP and the government will likely be incorrect. It makes more sense to insure (through regulations) that these types of events have a very small chance of happening.
One of the issues here is the is the different discount rates agents in the market have. A (public) corporation will tend to have a lower discount rate (i.e. preferring their money upfront), whereas an individual will tend to have a relatively higher discount rate (because they don't need to make their quarterly numbers). Because of this, a corporation may choose to save $100 today if the cost in a year is $120.
If there was a guy that lost his job and everyone on the block started donating food to him but you didn't want to, would you think it's acceptable for them to break into your house and take it by force?
What's the difference between that and from forcibly expelling me from their society, which is what would happen.
Do you have some numbers to back that up or is it your gut talking? I'm more inclined to believe our government military spending is due to us having bases and troops all over the world and starting wars every couple of years and pissing off half the world.
Of course our military spending is due to having bases and troops all over the world, and this is precisely why countries like the UK, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan can get away without spending as much on their militaries. Look at most NATO actions - who takes the largest role? Usually it's the US, while the rest of NATO (nearly) free-rides.
It would be hard to find a foreign politician who will say that they don't spend as much on defense because of the US's commitment to defend them, but it's an obvious conclusion when you compare military spending per GDP:
S. Korea: 2.7%
The UK and Spain were targets of bombings on 7-7-07, so it's not like the US is the only target. Also, I would argue that you have cause and effect backwards. We are probably pissing everybody off because (in part) we are spending so much on defense.