This “short, funny paper”:http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962462 on the “denialist’s deck of cards” by Chris Hoofnagle does a pretty good job at identifying a stock set of lobbyist/glibertarian responses to various proposals for consumer legislation.

Most of these arguments can be cogent in certain contexts. Sometimes the industry is correct on the facts and the issues. In others, the arguments [are] not. … The point of listing denialists’ arguments in this fashion is to show the rhetorical progression of groups that are not seeking a dialogue but rather an outcome. As such, this taxonomy is extremely cynical, but it is a reflection of and reaction to how poor the public policy debates.

Not as short and to the point as “Whale Central Station”:https://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/31/ask-a-nineteenth-century-whaling-expert/#comment-59351 but pretty useful nonetheless. Via “Larry Solum”:http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/.