If you want an exchange with a Tobin Tax, then create one. Everyone who thinks it's a good idea will trade on it. Others won't unless you force them to. We'll then let people figure out how valuable HFT is.
Ugh. This isn't how laws work. I'm not suggesting it nicely and asking 'pretty please'. Government should, can and has been used to promote justice, equality and fairness. But only if people care to use it to do so. Trying to do everything outside of the system will result in failure. Nobody here has given me any rational reason as to why HFT is a good or moral or productive or beneficial thing. Therefore it should be stopped. This attitude of "I'm taking my toys and going home" does nobody any good, including yourself.
The way I look at it, natural law's point is a valid one. Go start your own bourse.
People cannot give a rational reason for every little perk in a corporate list of perks, but what they can ensure is that with a good possibility of takeovers, the perks remain at around the right level, neither too high nor too low. The way I look at it, if HFT is that harmful, then conservative business owners would float their shares in "slower" exchanges.
This is the bitcoin world. People don't complain. They compete.
The faux 'trump card' that libertarians use frequently is something along the following lines: "if you have to use force to enact anything then it invalidates your justification", and "force" is painted with as large a brush as possible. I see this argument alluded to and used all over this forum. For some, I'd say it's actually their prime "philosophical" mantra. This 'reasoning' is so deeply flawed. It gives special status to the status quo. It makes enacting any means of justice impossible. It reduces any attempt at social cohesion into an absurd exercise in futility. But it's so easy; it's really more of an escape clause from deeper levels of understanding what justice is. Things become very simple and cartoonish when you adopt this world view. You identify problem "A" in the world but you can't do anything about it because that would require use of "force". Within this ideology, the only thing you can do is to provide "choices" to people. Understanding sociology and game theory exposes the absurdity of this position, much of what is viewed as 'choice' in a social context is nothing of the sort. There really is so much I can say on this topic, but I'd rather hear what this forum has to say regarding a defense of this world view as popularized by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged.
Just to show the absurdity of this argument I've created the following mad-libs below. They are not a perfect comparasion, but I believe they get the point across.
If you don't like a multi-national corporation raping your country then start your own multi-national corporation. Everyone who thinks it's a good idea will join it. Other's won't unless you force them to. We'll then let people figure out how great your multi-national corporation is.
If you see problems with your culture then start your own culture. Everyone who thinks it's a good idea will join it. Other's won't unless you force them to. We'll then let people figure out how valuable living in a culture with your values are.
If you want to live in a state with your ideal conditions then start your own state. Everyone who thinks it's a good idea will join it. Other's won't unless you force them to. We'll then let people figure out how valuable living in a state with your ideal conditions are.
If you want to live in a country that it's a global empire then start your own country. Everyone who thinks it's a good idea will join it. Other's won't unless you force them to. We'll then let people figure out how valuable living in a country that isn't a war all the time is.
If you want to live on a planet where there is no war, poverty, disease, exploitation, misery and famine then build your own planet. Everyone who thinks it's a good idea will join it. Other's won't unless you force them to. We'll then let people see how valuable your planet is.
You can see that this idea makes reform impossible. Hence its lack of merit.