He may be generally right, but some of his statements are not quite so:
Regulators and governments do not stop at half way or at 99% control, they want 100% control, always. 'A little regulated' is as much possible as 'a little pregnant'.
They may want all they want

, but they can't get it, because nobody can control anything 100%. From other hand, everybody can affect everything, a bit. Nothing is 100% regulated and nothing is 0% regulated. All we can fight for is % of regulation (the less the better).
I have never seen a government 'compromise' with its subjects.
Since 100% control is impossible, state needs cooperation of it's subjects. That's why, despite of being based on coercion, state's rule involes heaps of compromisses. Look around, they are everywhere.
But even in the unlikely event of Bitcoin being turned into Paypal 2.0 that would not stop but merely delay the rise of crypto-currency as the next, more resilient one is waiting just around the corner.
Yes, in a big scale of things it doesn't matter which exact cryptocurrency will conquer the world. Who cares, would it be Bitcoin1 or Bitcoin12. But current bitcoin holders do care, because when bitcoin will die, all their bitcoincoins will die too, along with their hopes of becoming multi-millionaires. It's not just BF people, it's almost all bitcoin holders who would want to save Bitcoin and would be ready to
some compromisses.
Therefore and beyond all unnecessary and highly ideological arguments: you cannot regulate the unregulatable so let's stop wasting energy on this absurd undertaking please.
They already regulate, to some extend. BF should work on keeping this extend small. And we should work on forming independent groups of developers around the world, that would be creating different bitcoin client implementations. Then BF won't be able to tamper the protocol even if government will force them to it.