The key seems to be our definitions of "regulation." Of course I do not include laws against outright criminal activity (fraud would be included) in my definition of obstructive regulations. Regulations with the primary purpose of corrupting the operation of market forces to favor a particular business, or sometimes with the purpose of simply preserving the power of the regulating body, are relatively easy to identify.

While it is difficult to get support for idealized minimum government interference in the economy, many reasonable people can agree that our government is too large, and regulations on the private sector are too extensive. We need to at least start moving in the other direction.

An article of interest can be found here, which shows that market forces actually can have more effect on policing business behavior than criminal penalties. There is an added advantage in that the regulation process is subject to the corrupting mixed-economy interplay between business and government (regulations are "tilted" to give the desired results in return for contributions and the like), while the free market cannot be controlled this way.