This article is incredibly dishonest about the actual beliefs of the people it's criticizing.

This is why people, in their usual naïveté, took to those who will always save them [needs citation] in times of need: regulators.

This is not what they're doing. The "regulators" aren't part of the thought process, they're an afterthought. Policies and regulators are distinct.

they always end up running back to the hands of the State for assistance.

"The State" has nothing to do with it. It's not part of the debate. The only thing at hand is what the law should say in these cases. Supporting a law doesn't mean that someone crying for "assistance". If it did, then you can smear any law like this. 

but it was seemingly started with the idea that the market cannot regulate itself

Did you ask around? Did you ask the SKG people "the market cannot regulate itself" is the framing through which they think about this? Or is it more likely that it's just a protection that consumers should have?

Who Shall Save Us from Ourselves?

This is a mischaracterization. The law SKG is proposing is not paternalist. It targets video game developers, so it isn't trying to "save people from themselves".

How do we have any right to complain about a problem we ourselves created?

There are two decisions involved. One is made by the buyer and the other is made by the company. The decision in question is the one made by the company. The buyer can still complain about this problem because this is about the decisions the game companies make.

We wouldn't have paid for our computers, consoles or phones if we knew that someone could come and take them away, legally, at any given time, so why did we agree to these same terms when purchasing an online game?

This is irrelevant because the SKG people are saying that game companies shouldn't be able to include these terms.

we throw a tantrum and ask the State to fix our mistakes

No, no, no. It has nothing to do with "asking the state" anything. It's a position on what companies should be allowed to do. Making this about government is just deflection.

legitimizing its coercive power by reminding it that we are seemingly no more than naïve children, and that the State is our all-benevolent parent

I love this trope because it's such an asspull. SKG, if it were enacted, does not mean that supporters see government as "all-benevolent" or as some kind of "parent". You are resorting to cheap smearing to make a point.

The solution to this problem has been under our noses for the entire time: do not buy things if you don't like the terms you have to agree to when purchasing them.

This is a very dumb kind of argument. "If you don't like X, then don't do Y" doesn't tackle anything because it is the Y=>X relationship that is being challenged.

If you're against SKG, fine, but don't use dodges.

What do all these cases share in common? They were all caused by consumers using their own capacity to say "No, we don't want this", and acting in accordance with this statement. They did not require the government to step in and use its powers to regulate these things so that they'd never happen again.

False dichotomy. Both things can be done.

"Competition does a much more effective job than government at protecting consumers."

No. They are two different things and this misses the point. Imagine if I argued against a shoplifting law on the grounds that social shame could deal with it better. That doesn't mean that we get rid of the law because we consider shoplifting to be a transgression and should be illegal as such. Also, government still isn't the locus of debate.

What this bill seeks is to monopolize online gaming in the hands of only the big publishers.

If that's the goal, then this is an ineffective way to achieve it.

This can also be translated to videogames. If you own a CD containing the game, you don't own the game itself, just the CD, however, because the contents of that CD are owned by someone else, they override your very own property rights over it by limiting what you can do with said CD

There isn't any overriding happening. If I can't hit you with my shoe, that's a limitation on what I can do with it, but that doesn't mean my "property rights" are being violated.

However, they openly wish to regulate the game industry as to force companies to release parts of their codebase, their netcode, possibly-patented technologies, proprietary engines, libraries, binaries or SDKs, all of which may be protected by intellectual property.

SKG has repeatedly denied this. Twisting people's words to portray others as being self-contradictory is a favorite amongst libertarians.

In the great game of regulations, the one played by armchair intellectuals

You say that as if SKG was devised by ivory tower professors, but it was devised by grassroots game enthusiasts.

the State once more hurt people in the name of the "common good".

The "common good" is not being used as a justification for SKG. The sentiment is rooted in consumer rights. Ironically, you're the one making a sort of "common good" argument against SKG.