Yeah, because that is exactly what I said.
Let me ask you a simple question, does any regulation state its goals, and if it doesn't (or no longer) reach those goals, is it repealed?
I don't know of ANY regulation that has a repeal clause in it if it doesn't meet its goals.
I don't know of ANY regulation that has a cost benefit analysis requirement before being employed.
I don't know ANY regulation that self monitors for effectiveness.
I don't know ANY regulation that was revoked when it was found to be ... ineffectual. Just more regulations to fix the broken bits of the previous (and bad) regulation.
So, yeah, "No" regulation is an option. AND not all regulations need to apply everywhere in a "one size fits all" over the top method.
I'll give a really good example of bad regulations that can be completely avoided by changing the term of the problem, CableTV (and Internet) franchise agreements. The whole "Net Neutrality" is a top down draconian implementation of regulations that is completely avoidable if you change where the problem exists; the last mile. Fix the last mile problem (monopolistic franchise agreements) AND you don't need a whole bunch of Government red tape on how Internet traffic is handled.
Freedom is expensive, and tyranny comes with a costly price tag. So, yes, I err on the side of Liberty.