So I think what is needed is actually carefully dosing with full spectrum.

I find this point of view so rude, tone deaf even.

"caveat emptor" only applies if you personally believe humans are entirely responsible for their own actions and can't possibly be manipulated or scammed by others. That, or you think this is likely (and it is) but you simply don't care about these people and think that this is the market correcting for "dumb consumers".

Or maybe you think the laws of the land define how we should behave to one another? Anything not made explicit by "the law" is thus meant to be ignored? Not your problem?

I'm sorry, it's just the sort of thing some one who benefits from the lack of regulation would say. It sounds biased - like you're trying to justify some venture of your own that is also "unregulated, so caveat emptor".

Let me guess, cryptocurrency enthusiast?

Anyway I say all this because there _are_ better arguments against government regulation. But caveat emptor is just saying "fuck government regulation, it doesn't let me screw people over as much". You might convince more people if your do a bit of research (and maybe don't assume everyone simply agrees with caveat emptor - this is the tone deaf bit).