I think the point Nic Cicutti is missing is that our tiny, tiny part of the economy seems to be regulated disproportionately heavily and ineffectively when measured against other industries.
Nic uses crime as a comparison when a far more suitable comparison would be to look at regulation in other areas where people spend money to “buy” things and have personal choice, eg travel, cars etc.
Far more is spent on such items than on financial products and yet the “regulation” generally focuses on making sure the product (the car) is safe and roadworthy, and not on making sure that the “perfect” car to match the consumer situation is chosen. Why? Because so much of it is subjective, as in our world.
I doubt that Nick Bamford’s original point was advocating financial anarchy, but perhaps that if someone buys the pension equivalent of a Vauxhall Corsa when perhaps a Renault Clio may have been fractionally more suitable, it is not that big a “loss” to justify making the whole buying a car process impossibly difficult, long winded, complex and of course needlessly expensive.