I think the framing of this article is super biased. It implies that there is a right to DeFi and that this law would take away that right (it also seems to imply it would do that by accident since legislators couldn't possibly do this on purpose.)
There isn't a right to undermine the nation state and maybe, just maybe, the government is for once waking up and doing a useful thing by nipping this in the bud before it becomes dangerous?
There's a natural right to undermine the nation state - or any other actor - when said actor itself undermines natural rights. Whether you believe that freely exchanging goods and services is a natural right or not is another question.
>There's a natural right to undermine the nation state - or any other actor - when said actor itself undermines natural rights. Whether you believe that freely exchanging goods and services is a natural right or not is another question.
This resolves to "there is a right to undermine anyone or anything for undermining your beliefs," because what is and isn't considered a "natural right" is entirely subjective.
Rights are social constructs, of course. But we rely on such social constructs all the time. Any ethical system, when you unravel it down to the very bottom, boils down to some axioms that are taken for granted - you can't construct ethics out of nothing.
OPs implicit assertion that undermining nation-states is somehow bad does not have a foundation that is any more stable.
Conversely, if something that isn't obviously problematic cannot be implemented in a legal way, then maybe, just maybe, the law in question is a bad idea?
Maybe. But this doesn't apply here since taking control of money from the state is obviously problematic and will result in us devolving into neofeudalism.
It's not obviously problematic to me, and I don't see why it's a dichotomy between nation-states and neo-feudalism. The states haven't had that much power over monetary policy for most of human history - and there were many different forms of social organization in said history, of which feudalism is a fairly small subset.
Nor is it obvious at all that there are no other forms that have yet to be tried. Or are being tried - I mean, the Zapatistas are crazy decentralized, but it's not a feudal society, either.
The logical outcome of giving any and all control over money to market mechanisms is anarcho-capitalism, where the market is the only thing that matters.
The logical outcome of anarcho-capitalism is feudalism, as people with more money concentrate more and more power with no state to stand in the way. Sooner or later you either do what Jeff Bezos wants or his Prime Forces will see that you are punished. Who's gonna stop them?
"It's impossible to comply with the ban on murder while we continue killing people" - Yes, that's the point. Stop doing what you're doing.