> How about the ability to self-regulate

What does "self-regulate" mean in this context?

Simply, not depending on a centralized authority for regulation. For instance, whatever value any gov offers regarding trading regulation can be codified into the network.

Here's the most obvious example right now: what is the argument for centrally regulating BTC at this point given its design? People will HODL no matter what happens. The set of all attributes of personal sovereignty includes self-regulation.

Can you give an example of an act of personal sovereignty?

Yes, owning property when that ownership does not require enforcement by a central authority.

So you have to enforce it yourself? That's just lawlessness.

Actually it's the elimination of a use case for a law.

Sure... but then how do you stop others from taking, using or damaging your property?

Well you do have an example of this in BTC. For physical property, it might be backed by a smart contract, then whoever takes your land, does so at the risk of being deplatformed. IOW, take my land, then the world around you becomes off-limits. Then you would have to be Alexander the Great to expand your world. Then antagonist is back into an energy expenditure issue. It's just not worth the energy cost to steal your land, so I don't.

BTC doesn't enforce property rights. If someone steals your keys, they control your coins. The BTC network doesn't care that the keys are stolen.

The other claim is even more bizarre. Let's say that your car is "backed" by a smart contract. How does a smart contract stop a thief from stealing your car? Does it involve magic?