Digging into his post history to avoid refuting his point (which is overstated) is ... not appropriate? great?
I can pretty easily agree with a weaker version of his statement: regulations have a disproportionate impact on small entities. They're expensive to comply with, and small entities tend not to have access to the exotic legal tricks and arms-length interaction with regulations that can make them much less effective.
For the first one, if we can agree the regulation is good, then so be it. If your business can only thrive by hurting other people, you don’t get to be in business, that isn’t a more fundamental right than not being harmed by businesses. For the second, the solution is to plug loopholes that allow businesses of any size to bypass regulations. In no case is it the correct solution to get rid of good regulations.
> For the first one, if we can agree the regulation is good, then so be it.
IMO: If we can agree that the regulation has a net good effect, considering externalities and adverse effects. Having a "good regulation" that also increases concentration of control in an industry can end up being a net negative.
> For the second, the solution is to plug loopholes that allow businesses of any size to bypass regulations.
This is a nice thing to strive for, but in practice layers of indirection and ample legal counsel accomplishes a lot even in well-run democracies (even leaving aside how large organizations often influence how they are regulated in both direct and indirect ways).
I can pretty easily agree with a weaker version of his statement: regulations have a disproportionate impact on small entities. They're expensive to comply with, and small entities tend not to have access to the exotic legal tricks and arms-length interaction with regulations that can make them much less effective.