but this coup rests on some dubious assumptions and leaves many of the underlying tensions unresolved. the various legal regimes used to attain social, political, and economic goals have overlapping and complementary features. all of the regimes, including regulatory laws, set enforceable standards that help society preserve the integrity of the person, property, and environment. to make their way in this system, people can choose the regulatory regime that suits their overall purposes best. the decision to bring most market activities under the non-criminal administrative schemes is, in large part, justified on the grounds that corporate actors - and other marketeers - are engaged in productive activities that only harm persons, their property, and environments incidentally. the wrongful acts are not committed with the subjective intention necessary to find true criminality, with mens rea. the harm-inflicting acts, in the language of the legal philospher h.l.a. hart, morally neutral. in the much older language of the judges, the marketeer's violation of a regulatory law is a malum prohibitum (wrong because it is prohibited) as opposed to a malum in se (wrong in itself).
Hippie