Supporting, not supporting, or merely recognizing an existing specific law, should not be equated with supporting or not supporting all (existing and hypothetical) laws. Who in their sane mind would advocate having no law whatsoever.

Why do you support a law which prevents me from shooting you in the head without any repurcussions   What would happen if law and regulation would forbid you from breathing  

Society has established laws to protect itself from investment scams. We hope society will protect a right to digital transactions privacy (or at least the right to use encryption), but if society decides we must all shoot ourselves in the head, then we'll be in a Dark Age.

(I advise you don't pursue any career which involves applying logic)