Such a "speed limit" is an unfathomably bad idea, in every way, and moreover is a violation of fundamental human rights. I deeply oppose it. That is all.
I am not sure if you are insulting everyone who reads your point, or your own ability to communicate.
But maybe interpret the ideas less as a dichotomy you can't untangle and so must reject, which is a fragile place to reason from, and instead identify what are good points, what are not, and improve upon either.
Because there is certainly a great deal of truth to the problems being addressed.
To be clear I'm not necessarily agreeing with the idea, but to be fair, there's more to it than you're suggesting.
In computing, waiting kills (indirectly, by wasting time). Speed is life.
Some roads have minimum speed limits. If we're talking about limits, that's the kind of limit we want.
How much faster should an ‚automated thinking‘ than a ‚manual thinking‘ be (allowed to be)?