What do you do when the choices of two people conflict? What if you want to throw me in jail for stealing your house, but in my regulatory framework houses aren't owned but merely occupied?

You can't have "personal choice" as the foundation of government.

I’m thinking more about consumers and businesses.

Think about a food truck.

As the owner I can pick a high standard regulator that has a higher cost of compliance but more customers are interested in the cleanest standard food service.

Or I can go for low cost regulations and maybe exceed them on my own and pocket the difference in regulations.

However, I think the US states originally was intended to more like what you say before the federal government overreach began.

> To me the ideal economy has multiple choices for regulations so that there is regulatory competition.

That's called free market. And voluntary certification (by independent standards committees) for the "regulatory part".

Independent regulators tend to grow in power become gatekeepers to the industry and harm innovation.

I think having competing regulation/certifications is different than the status quo and offers benefits.

As a consumer and business operator, I want to be able to choose.

Yes, a free market, something that doesn’t largely exist!