We can rely on our bodies, in most cases, to fight off infection and disease, but the process can take a toll. Better to be pro-active and prevent the illness in the first place.

Isn't there a reasonable parallel that can be applied to "the system?" Instead of letting an "Enron" virus run its course, why not go that extra mile to prevent it in the first place?

The argument that regulation is the enemy of entrepreneurship doesn't cut it for me. Of course we have to be mindful of what's being enacted in the name of regulation, just as we have to be mindful of a great many things. It's a matter of striking a balance, of continuing to allow creativity and initiative to spur success while at the same time stopping abuse and corruption in its tracks.

Perhaps the medical analogy has merit. When a doctor prescribes new meds, it often starts with a low dosage and involves a period of "tweaking" to get it right. Thus an ounce of prevention becomes an ounce and a half, then an ounce and a quarter. Why do we resist taking a similar approach to the regulation of business? Do we fear that regulation will hurt people? If that's the case, why do we not similarly fear the destruction that follows in the wake of corruption and executive misbehaviour?