This sounds like you’re arguing against an invented boogyman.

For me and my experience, it’s reversed. Someone says some measured statement against a piece of regulation and someone shakes out of the woodwork mumbling something about some horrific thing like slavery.

Arguments of the structure:

“Aha, so you do like regulation, therefore you must like ALL regulation”

Or

“Oh, you oppose this piece of regulation, therefore you must want lord of the flies”

Or

“You only like regulation you like” (which is effectively a tautology)

People can oppose the burden of a body of regulation without opposing a government enforcing contract law.

And when someone says “regulation is bad” - a good faith interpretation of their statement is that they mean we have a large body of bad regulation, not that we should abolish the state and devolve into trading Monero for slaves.