Uh, wasn't Enron an example of regulatory failure? They gamed the regulatory system, bribed the regulators who were supposed to keep them in check, and convinced everyone that everything was OK, because everyone got too dependent on believing regulators. If it wasn't for regulations surrounding Enron, we may not have trusted them as much, would have demanded audits by companies whose reputation was on the line (how badly did US regulator reputation get damaged after that debacle?), and chances are what happened at Enron may not have had the chance to happen in the first place.
I understand what you're saying, but that could not have worked.
Without regulations
any company vaguely in position to scam would do so.
We would not have enough people to audit all of it and thus noone would trust each other and business on a big scale would come to a halt. No more factories, no more machines, no more electronics, no more modern society. Just a big pile of untrustfulness.
And i agree that regulations are not perfect. But at least they put up a barrier for entry so we are not collectively screwed out of a life on a regular basis.
And then of of course you get to the discussion of which regulations make sense and that is a very very broad discussion because there are people on both sides (guess on which side the big corps are..).
This fact that there are different stances in this discussion means that an RBE is just an utopia that could not be upheld in a stable manner.
Want an example of how an more or less unregulated organisation behaves? Look no further than the NSA. Now imagine every megacorp having the same kind of unregulated power.