I [am] pragmatic enough to understand that minimal regulations are needed to help prevent fraud and the like.
I think this is where most reasonable people fall; the differences lie in the definition of "minimal." I'll take net neutrality as an example, since Trump's team has foolishly indicated a desire to reverse course on this.
1) ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and others have slowly instituted data caps on all customers. Both on mobile and at home.
2) They also have policies where certain kinds of internet traffic are exempt from these data caps. They tend to favor traffic from websites and programming that are owned by the ISP. AT&T owns DirecTV, and streaming its programming on their network doesn't count toward one's data cap. T-mobile has agreements with music and video services that pay the ISP to be exempt from its data caps. If AT&T is allowed to continue unchallenged, then expect Comcast, which owns NBC, to start prioritizing its networking over others.
3) This kind of vertical lock-in to a single company's internet access and networking is hugely anti-competitive. It violates the core tenet of an open internet which is that we, the users and consumers, should determine who wins and loses in this market of information, not the internet monopoly you happen to live beneath.
4) Left unregulated, the business incentive is to continue these undoubtedly profitable anti-consumer practices. What happens when Comcast decides you need to get your news from NBC only, and restricts user traffic to the NYT or WSJ? At that point it's no longer just anti-competitive, it's anti-democratic.
Now, I realize ISPs are a largely monopolistic enterprise, and most people oppose unregulated monopolies. I bring it up because I think it's an incredibly important issue, and because Trump has flipped 180 degrees on his view of ISPs like AT&T (specifically their enormous and pending Time Warner merger) since the election.
But I would make the same argument for financial regulation. Fraud like we recently saw with Wells Fargo, to me, underscores the need for more oversight with regard to financial institutions. When their calculated business mistakes can lead the country into recession -- a consequence from which these CEOs and high-level decision-makers are largely immune -- I don't feel a laissez-faire approach is acceptable. Don't get me wrong: I think competition is among the best motivators for progress and achievement, and the marketplace usually does this well. But I also think regulation is necessary in cases where the Venn diagram of business success and consumer benefit don't overlap.