Taking action against a few doing harm for the welfare of the many is what a government is supposed to do. Off course every government solution falls into the broad category of taking away from some and forming a beuracracy. You can't have oversite without one. The economic markets just proved that yet again for those that didn't learn it from TR's time or the GD. The problem with you is that you only look at one side of the issue. You focus on a few loosing something and ignore that even those few also benefit in some way. There are very few people in America that wouldn't have benefited from a more stable financial/stock market over the last year. The real world is a balance of forces and there's always the potential for too much of a good thing or having to choose the lesser of two evils. Another issue is that not everyone agrees on what constitutes doing harm.

Nuclear power still has big issues, but I agree it needs to be reconsidered. It's not as risky as most think. As far as Alaska goes that's a red herring that amounts to next to nothing. Drilling in Anwar will not matter much at all in getting us off foreign oil. New technology replacing tens of percent of our consumption not old technology replacing a few percent is what is needed. Drill more, or nothing is ridiculously boneheaded. It's a cochamamy stance that screams oil lobbyist influence. People dependent on tourism for their livelihood also have a right to protect their main resource.

Space solar power is not cost effective at this point in time and won't be until launch costs are far less even if you mass produce the generating and beaming satellites. The stimulus money needs to be spent on sustainable technology. If Musk or someone else develops truly reusable rockets and tests indicate beamed power is safe, I'll reconsider my stance on that.

Like I said earlier, I prefer technological investment over regulations, but the uneccessary delay may have but us in a boat where some are required.

Regards,
Mark