I'll defend him.
Friedman on regulation, was always trying to make the simple point that regulation has a cost. A regulation should only be considered for implementation if the unregulated free market alternative is costlier than it would be with a regulation in place.
For instance: if your goal was simply to prevent death or injury, and that was your only goal, then you should support a regulation that states that all cars be destroyed and banned, and people are to wear full body, high impact protective suits, gas masks, and be required to stay in a 2 foot thick concrete bunker for the entirety of their lives. As long as everyone has food and water, hypothetically, this would prevent death.
So clearly there is a price for safety. (this is an extreme example for extreme's sake - it's absurd and would be economically and socially disastrous, obviously) If the regulation costs more than not regulating, then it should absolutely be abandoned.
Requiring seatbelts was always a point of good debate, in fact it's probably a good regulation/law. (costs less than NOT having that law) A regulation, however, that requires car manufacturers to equip all cars with 4 wheel drive and electronic traction control, is probably a bad idea. The cost to society would likely outweigh the benefit.
Another example: Banning texting while driving. Clearly, texting while driving is dangerous. No one would dispute this, the evidence is very clear. But if we look at how much people pay for a cell phone plan that incorporates texting as a feature, we can extrapolate how much we value an individual text message. We can then compare that to a Value of Statistical Life calculation, and then decide whether the regulation is more efficient, or not.
This is the point Friedman was always making in regard to regulation.
So the question, "Is regulation good or bad?" is not the right question. "Is [specific regulation] good or bad?" is a better one.
