I'm arguing that people should have a say in the rules they live under. That's kind of fundamental to the whole concept of democracy.
A regional entity can't really have full control over its monetary system unless it's a 'nobody goes in or out' fortress like North Korea. In which case, it's of course difficult to have a democracy in anything but name! So to talk about the rules of local politics as if they can contain the monetary system through which they trade with others doesn't seem to me like the product of careful thought either. The US was sort of in that position because it was the global hegemon, but that should hardly be thought of as the historical norm.
As far as I can tell market regulations can either
1 - apply to all market participants
2 - apply to some market participants but not others
3 - have no regulations at all
I say that regulations should apply to conventional finance and crypto, because anything else would be giving an unfair advantage to some market participants, so I'm arguing for 1.
The crypto bros are saying that they don't want financial regulations to apply to them, because they don't want to, but they still want regulations to apply to conventional finance, so they are arguing for 2.
What is your position exactly? Because sometimes it seems that you want 3, but it's hard to tell from your confused rhetoric.
A gradual transition from human actors as middlemen (who need regulation because they have self-interest) to disinterested algorithms which are self-regulating.
So a self-driving car should not be bound by the traffic code because it has no self-interest but human drivers should be bound by it? Why should having or not having self-interest make any difference as to whether the rules apply to you?
If all self-driving cars are hardcoded to never break the speed limit there's no reason to have radar traps. Self driving cars already have codes that they follow, which the public can oversee the same way they oversee traffic codes now.
For that matter if self-driving cars became able to respond faster than a human, there'd be no need for the old speed limits at all. A car would probably know its hardware much better than a human and know what it's individual fastest safe speed would be. Universal speed limits would only be necessary while there are human and AI drivers on the same roads. Which is why, as I said, a phased change-over would be best.
Because 1) the question was not "if it's safer", 2) "safer" doesn't mean "safe", and 3) safety isn't the only concern. For example, a self-driving car could be programmed to drive aggressively, not stopping at red lights, not giving way, etc. and this would be unfair to other road users, even if it was completely safe. Everybody who has a degree of intellegence understands this. You simply lack the intellectual stature to have this conversation, sorry.
A regional entity can't really have full control over its monetary system unless it's a 'nobody goes in or out' fortress like North Korea. In which case, it's of course difficult to have a democracy in anything but name! So to talk about the rules of local politics as if they can contain the monetary system through which they trade with others doesn't seem to me like the product of careful thought either. The US was sort of in that position because it was the global hegemon, but that should hardly be thought of as the historical norm.