"In the end, like almost all other arguments about The Right Thing To Do, this is an argument about resource (re)distribution"
Like many things there are two separate issues:
1) If everyone did it, there would be a cost to society in that fewer products would be made, given the higher overhead, skills, etc. required.
2) If you (some particular person) did it, it would make you uncompetitive.
People suggest regulation because it fixes (2) without requiring any individual to unilaterally decide to sacrifice for the common good. Issue (1) is a finite cost that may or may not be considered worthwhile.
It's really weird for people to continually take the position that they can't do anything altruistic and be against society forcing everybody to. Shouldn't it be one or the other?