…If someone got sick at your restaurant, it was over for the owner. Word would spread quickly and everyone would know. If you had a good story and a good reputation — being good in grade school and being known as honorable has its rewards — you might survive. The town, person by person, would make it’s call. That call wasn’t always correct, small town rumors, cliquishness and the like are known menaces, but for the most part the town took care of itself. So while it wasn’t always perfect — there are parts of the town I don’t miss at all — it managed well enough.
What I’m wondering is whether this can, at least in part, explain differences in attitudes toward regulation between more conservative rural areas and larger cities that are generally much more liberal. In a larger city, you are much more vulnerable to predatory type behavior, unfair treatment, much more likely to be dealing with strangers you have never seen before and will never see again. That uncertainty, and the experience of being taken advantage of if you aren’t continuously on guard, and sometimes even if you are — maybe a contractor did a lousy job and refuses to fix the flaws or refund money — might lead you to declare "there ought to be a law!," or that "someone needs to stop this!" You would be much more inclined to think that regulation was needed.
Конкуренция с полным доступом к информации (возможность сравнить дантистов в маленьком городе) – абсолютно эффективна, следовательно рынок работает.
В большом городе дантиста найти труднее, так как нет объективной информации о качестве услуг и конкуренция уже не эффективно регулирует рынок, он работает плохо.
Поэтому идеи для малого города, в большом (современном глобальном мире) не работают.