kaz, I think you made a pretty good, if not exhaustive list of 'these others', although most of the cases of cost-risk you cite would be covered by insurance.
My point is, since it needs to be spelled out, that at some point, all the regulation that the user pays for does not benefit the user, but others. The user is paying for his own shackles.
IMO, the regulation should be borne almost entirely by general revenue and if the money runs out, or it begins to cost more than the government would like, or the nation is prepared to pay for, the nation needs to decide how much regulation it will pay for - not just pass the costs on to the (much smaller) user base.
At the moment, regulation has become seen as a revenue stream for the state and the escalating costs to the user serve only to shrink the user base - i.e. there is no economic imperative to be efficient and effective in the way we are regulated.
If the user is forced to pay for the regulation, then the user should be the regulator - i.e. self regulation. Ironically, we are moving towards that kind of model in a distorted way - i.e. SAAA, GFA, RAA, ASRA etc.