Nobody disputes that government should be enforcing peace, contracts, providing defense, etc. That sort of thing is necessary and prudent. But the enforcement needs to happen fairly and according to clear rules. The enforcers need to be accountable. And often the citizen needs more than just a ballot box to push back on corrupt government.
To bring it back to tech, rules are not evenly written, let alone enforced. Why is electronic mail treated differently than mail? Why are hosts pressured to drop horrible people from their customer lists, but not phone companies? Why is it OK for tech companies to keep records for government consumption, but not car dealers, libraries, supermarkets, etc.?
If I support banning alcohol, I probably don't drink alcohol myself. Hell, it'd be pretty hypocritical if I did.
(There are exceptions, of course - if I supported changing the side of the road we drive on, I'd wait for a change of law before acting on my beliefs!)
I think that sums up everybody that doesn't understand how effective governments work. Regulations are an intrinsic part of them and the libertarians know that. That's why they're against them. It's a lot easier to create tax loopholes when you don't have thousands of regulations to worry about.
You should be careful with such sentences. Maybe it's ok to say "some" but saying "most" is nonsense and dangerous.
Fringes aside, I think that sums up everybody. The difference is that most regulation doesn’t directly impact the average Joe.