To be honest, it's really only oxymoronic in a very limited slice of America. It has come up a few times on HN that the definition of freedom varies wildly in different parts of the world. As an example, take healthcare: in the US market driven healthcare might be the freest freedom that ever freedomed - but elsewhere social safeties that allow residents to live the best quality of life they could are considered to be the highest freedom you can achieve. While health issues are a regrettable part of the human condition, a society might want to strive to minimize the amount of stress spent by individuals on particularly bad die rolls by their bodies and fate allowing individuals the freedom to spend their time more according to their wills. Even "free market" US healthcare comes with a number of regulations - I'm not certain if you were alive (and paying insurance) before pre-existing condition coverage was guaranteed but a lot of people ended up unable to even secure insurance in that world, it was awful.

Regulation is a firm requirement to a free market, without regulation of any kind you will pretty quickly descend into authoritarianism as whoever has the biggest stick will just take everyone else's stick. While there definitely are dangers at the other end of the spectrum if you're fanatically at either end you've got to ignore a whole bunch of pretty well known issues.

> Regulation mixed with "operating more freely" is oxymoronic

Common regulation between jurisdictions allows businesses subjected to the regulatory oversight of multiple involve jurisdictions to operate more freely than if the jurisdictions did not coordinate and instead adopted regulations where it was impossible to comply with one without violating the other.

You shouldn't just pick one word from one part of a statement and a two-word phrase in another part and ignore the rest of the statement in order to create your own argument to respond to.