'Why not let the customer choose' can also be a generic argument against almost any kind of regulation. Why not have less strict regulations for food safety, or

'Why not let the customer choose' can also be a generic argument against almost any kind of regulation. Why not have less strict regulations for food safety, or airlines, so various competitors can offer differing levels of safety - and if it matters enpugh to people, they'll choose the (more expensive) options with more safety. Is that freedom or is it capitalist anarchy? I would argue (as many do) that government regulations have a place in enforcing basic guarantees of safety and fairness. And net neutrality strikes me as very important to guarantee fairness, both in terms of freedom of speech and a level playing field for innovation.