Just like open borders in a welfare state is a bad idea, although open borders, per se, is a good idea in a free market economy with a limited government that simply maintains the rule of law and protects rights, deregulation of banks within a Central Bank banking system of fractional reserves is a bad idea.
When statists argue with libertarians, the statists are usually arguing from the premise that what we've had has been free marketism, and the regulations the statists now propose are to correct the damage caused by a deregulated "free" market. In the case of JP Morgan, the idea that Chase Morgan has been working in a free market is a faulty premise. Banks are working in a central bank system which is ultimately controlled by the rules created by government. As long as the consequences of prior government interventions continue to prevent the functioning of what would be a free market based on free choices, we'll be forced to act within the rules of government intervention, and regulation will be called for to correct prior interventions, for practical purposes.
We can't have a real discussion and consideration of free market operations until everyone understands what a free market entails and that we've never had a free market. The Left always dismisses the fact that we've never had a free market as a libertarian dodge, not unlike Marxists who claim that true Marxism has never been tried, but this doesn't alter the fact, and it doesn't create a false equivalency, since economic laws come into play and we can predict the consequences of both a true free market and true Marxism. So, here we are with no free market and with no free market ever in existence, yet with the Left creating regulations to ameliorate the damage cause by a free market.
The facts are that government constantly creates regulations in futile attempts to fix prior interventions, government is getting us deeper in a hole, and government failings/unintended consequences are more evident than ever.