As far as the specific issues, you and I are largely in agreement. Particularly on net neutrality. As far as things like smoking, gambling, prostitution, etc. I agree that outright prohibition would be detrimental. And I would add marijuana and other drugs to the list. However, completely abandoning restrictions and government oversight on these issues is not always beneficial. You identify these as choices, and they are, but the results of choices are not always limited to the person making the choices. Smoking is the best example (and at this point I will point out that I am a smoker, and that I live in one of the states that has completely banned indoor smoking aside from private residences and tobacco shops.) When I smoke I am most directly hurting myself. But second-hand and third-hand (the lingering residue found in a place where heavy smoking has occurred) can both hurt people who would never touch a tobacco product intentionally. It has been argued that my freedom to smoke infringes on their freedom to breathe clean air; but also that their freedom to breathe clean air infringes on my freedom to smoke. Something has got to give. In this case, freedom for the sake of freedom can't solve the issue since somebody's freedom is infringed upon regardless. The non-intervention approach was deemed a failure because cigarette smoke cannot be contained in one section of a building and lingers for some time after smoking has stopped. Added to that was the fact that very few establishments banned smoking entirely because having the option was deemed better for business. Business owners complained of infringement of their right to maintain a smoking section, but once the playing field was leveled the free market carried on. The very few places that were forced to close were crappy establishments to begin with, while superior establishments had regained the business of smokers who had been alienated in the first place and thrive quite nicely. Plus, places that maintain a smoker's patio can expand their client base without hurting anyone. At first, having to step outside to smoke was a nuisance, but now that I'm used to it, I have no problems giving away my right to smoke at the bar. Not because I am uninformed, but because it serves the greater good; it serves more benefit than harm.

As far as environmental issues, those have similar characteristics to smoking, but even more hurdles to overcome. The range of problems is much more vast, and so is the scale. The problems associated usually take time to accumulate, and often do so in an almost invisible fashion. 9 times out of 10 we don't understand the scenario until the negative affects are staring us in the face. And the negative affects don't just hurt our health, they can limit economic potential as well by reducing resource yields and the variety of possibilities we have available. In contrast, responding to these situations increases not only our knowledge base but our technological potential as well. But the new technologies are expensive and often untested, so finding investors, especially in times of economic hardship, is extremely difficult. And without those investors, we cannot properly fine tune the tech, to say nothing of actually dealing with the problem. Once we get through the transitional phase, the economic prospects look very promising. The problem is, the businesses are concerned with being able to actually weather the transitional phase itself, and are therefore understandably reluctant to enter that phase. But their reluctance doesn't solve the problem, indeed the situation gets exponentially worse as they drag their feet in the mud. I would prefer to use incentive to get them to do the right thing as opposed to coercion, and this is the direction many are trying to advocate. LEED certification is an example. But the incentives proposed so far are not able to create the desired result on their own. And time is of the essence. Coercion is sometimes faster.

Getting the markets to deal with the problem isn't the only challenge. Citizens are just as slow to adapt. Most people just don't have the knowledge to properly comprehend what is going on. LET ME MAKE THIS NEXT POINT VERY CLEAR: I am NOT saying most people are stupid. I AM saying that these issues are incredibly complex. It doesn't matter what side of the global warming debate you are on, to be able to competently understand the issue and evaluate what your preferred news source is telling you, you need varying levels of knowledge in: physics, calculus, statistical analysis, chemistry, ecology, watershed, computer systems, geology & soil science, general technology and mechanics, atmospheric science/meteorology, environmental history, biology, economics, policy as well as finely-tuned critical thinking skills. It also helps to actually use the equipment and formulas involved. And once you have these skills you need to actually SEE the data gathered in the field, not the watered down, pre-interpreted crap that advocacy groups and pundits peddle to us. I am learning all of this stuff in my program at college, and it is often overwhelming. Even I feel inadequate to the task of comprehending these concepts at the moment. The more I learn the more I realize how difficult it is for most people to make an informed decision. And it doesn't help that the media regularly clouds both sides of the debate. I don't accuse people of being stupid, I accuse the subject matter of being too confusing and time-consuming for most people to wrap their head around. It is much more efficient, quick, and cost effective to take the data straight to the policy makers and hope to hell they make the right choice, while simultaneously informing the public as best we can.

Damn, I apologize for going on for so long. Take it as a compliment to your debate and intelligence.

To wrap up: different problems have different solutions. Causes have effects. Everything is connected. Your choices can make things worse for innocent third parties. Freedom is very important, but to say it trumps all other concerns all of the time is too simplistic. Freedom is most useful when paired with knowledge. And our knowledge leads us to answers we don't always like, but have to accept anyway. Occasionally that answer is that pure freedom is not going to save the day.