So, you support both government regulation and consumer protection, but don't think that the government should remove bad choices from the marketplace or protect consumers from price gouging? How are we supposed to understand that? How can we make sense of you implying that total freedom of choice and total government control are the only options, but then saying you are somewhere in the middle... except for this case, in which you side against the exploited consumers?
What would the conditions have to be for you to take the side of the person getting screwed by profiteers?
When a seemingly intelligent person makes arguments that make no sense, bad faith is a reasonable conclusion. The other options are talking out of their ass and ignorance.