>Markets also cannot account for externalities. If those externalities are something you care about (e.g. the environment you live in) - you need regulation.
Markets account for externalities via ownership and torts. This was gutted in the 1800s in the US where a judge ruled people couldn't sue for the impact of environmental pollution, in the name of the "greater good" of industrialization.
Rule of law and precedent are considered quaint and optional now.
But this centuries-old decision not encapsulated as a constutional amendment is binding?
Nope.
I'd disagree with the framing of this: The ownership and torts _were_ the regulation. I'm using a narrow definition of "market" that really only concerns supply and demand (because this is what "free market" ideals all revolve around).