The free market is an interesting thing.
I think the best system is a government monitored market, where companies are not allowed to do certain things, but outside of that, free to do anything. I should be free to buy things not promoted by the FDA, the EPA, or similar, so long as I am either charged a whole lot of money to pay for pollution cleanup, or I am seeing a "NOT APPROVED" label on products in big red letters.
Same goes for UBER. They should exist, they shouldn't be regulated, but people should have a right to know the risks of the business. That they aren't protected by any sorts of laws, and that these drivers are not approved.
It's why I can say I tend to lean libertarian, without falling to the same "trap" most libertarians fall into. I am not anti-government, anti-regulation, but I am against restrictions of freedom. Carbon taxes vs carbon taxes. Government assurances of safety rather than government enforcement of safety.
Would this mean the poor would buy unregulated products more often? Yes. However, they will get cheaper access to things, freeing up some of their money, and they will be well aware of what choices they are making. Better they have the choice, rather than to have no choice at all.
Would it mean people will die, killed of unregulated products? Yes. But it will mean they saw the warnings, and paid the extra money from extra taxes or regulations to ensure their unhealthy actions didn't hurt the medical system.
I suppose my views tend more to the "classical liberal" viewpoint, where the ultimate goal is for government-created freedoms and ensured markets. However, I don't think the modern idea of "liberal" supports that, although they do fairly well in the US. I'm a huge fan of Obama's actions, for example, especially his stance on the TPP.