To fight against overregulation is to accept some regulation. How does one objectively define "overregulation?"

"No regulation" is easy. It's defined by 0. Fighting for no regulation makes sense, because there is an objective goal that can be measured by everyone with the same result, like 2+2=4.

"Overregulation" has no objective meaning. KYC may be overregulation to you, but not to someone else. And how could you even debate your position when your metric has no objective definition?

Fighting "overregulation" is to fight a battle with no concept of winning. When exactly have you won? What amount of regulation is below "overregulation?" Where is the line, and how does one know when it's been crossed?

Fighting for rights with the goal of preventing "overregulation" or "too much violation" is not a long term strategy for success, if defending rights is the goal. You're already accepting a level of rights violation, which means you're accepting that you don't actually have a right; you have only that which is being granted to you.

Only taking 50% of a slave's labor by force doesn't somehow make him free. The only moral stance is to protect 100% of a man's labor from being taken by force. Defending him from "over enslavement" (is that 25%? 50? Define it...) is to accept that he has no right to not be enslaved. The line can always be moved. Zero tolerance can't be. It is zero or a violation, which must not be tolerated.

#Bitcoin should have zero regulation. No regulation on possession, transfer, or mining. There is no acceptable level at which my right to sound money may be violated. Otherwise, I have no true right to sound money. I'm right back at fiat, whereby I'm told how much freedom I have. That's not freedom at all.