These include:

• Global Reach -- contracts, filters, label and other self-ordering mechanisms can be "enforced" globally. In contrast, top down laws are difficult to enforce outside of the local geographical jurisdiction that enacts them.
• Flexibility -- Sound private sector trade practices can evolve rapidly in the face of rapid technological change. It's harder to get centralized agreements to amend laws and regulations.
• Diversity -- Minority views regarding values can find an appropriate home in a decentralized, diverse, navigable online world. Top down laws tend to stifle dissent or disempower minorities.
• Lower Cost -- It's cheaper to let decentralized actors to take direct action to protect themselves. In contrast, governmental enforcement of top down laws is very expensive, especially in a global context.
• Integrity -- Top down lawmaking can be "captured" by special interests. Decentralized decision-making in a diverse context cannot so readily be corrupted.
• Accountability and Legitimacy -- It's fair to hold parties to the contracts they make and to make them responsible for their own decisions regarding where to go online and with whom to deal. Any centralized, top down law may be viewed as illegitimate by those it constrains if they do not feel they had an adequate opportunity to shape policy.
• Protection -- A marketplace for competing rule sets will evolve more effective mechanisms for protecting those who seek security and trust.
• Reliability -- Decentralized systems are  more robust. Top down systems are brittle.