There's no benefit to the user to having no seatbelts. There's a huge benefit to having open markets at all times.
The usual phrase for your argument is "false analogy."
The usual phrase for your argument is "false analogy."
No seatbelts means it's easier to get out of the vehicle (if you planned to or not). Some seatbelts are uncomfortable. Seatbelts add to the materials and assembly cost of the vehicle, and add weight to the vehicle which increases fuel usage and wear on the tires and suspension and road. Maybe they wrinkle your clothes? Installing retrofit seatbelts on a vehicle without them can be difficult and the result may be really uncomfortable. Very ocassionally, it might be preferable to be flung from a vehicle rather than retained in a vehicle during a colission, although that would have to be a pretty specific set of circumstances, because being flung from a vehicle results in a lot of undesirable injury.
Not having seatbelts has minor benefits. All of them are outweighed by the benefits of seatbelts in my opinion (and I think there's broad consensus) but claiming there's no benefit to not having them or that there's no cost to having them is silly.
I quoted the full sentence, but I was mainly referring to:
>> unhindered by capital controls, “know your client” rules imposed on broker-dealers, and other frictions of the traditional financial system
While you can always find some little exceptions, most financial regulation has actually has good reason to exist and solves actual problems (though maybe not your problems, as in burglary laws do not solve burglars' problems). It's not much of a "feature" to do away with them, since then you just invite the re-emergence of problems that have already been solved or mitigated.