5 ms·

Anyone else think it's weird that regulators of X can decide what is defined as X?

by bmmayer1 11y ago

iamdave 11y ago
I don't follow. Isn't that the point?
- aianus 11y ago
  No, because they have a clear incentive to categorize everything as X so they can collect their taxes and fees and feel important and powerful.
  - iamdave 11y ago
    If not them, then who?
    - aianus 11y ago
      Congress? The courts? Some third party at least.
      - iamdave 11y ago
        But...Legislatures and courts designate regulatory agencies, through enabling acts[1] that allows said agency to exist and which lists its jurisdiction and areas of responsibility. That's how regulatory bodies exist, it's what they're for. A court established regulatory body defining what it regulates is 100% within the scope of that body under the law. So in a way, this already happens. I'm not exactly seeing the issue here. Regulatory bodies don't just appear out of nowhere, they have to be established by a legislature or a court. You're asking for a feature that already exists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_act#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_act#United_States
  - Frondo 11y ago
    It seldom happens that government agencies enact new regulations to "feel important and powerful". Far more often, they enact new regulations because new circumstances are similar enough to the old ones. It's usually the case that, to anyone with some knowledge of history, that the regulations are a good idea to put in place before people really start getting scammed/hurt/etc. To say that government agencies take action to "feel important and powerful" certainly casts the agencies in a trivial or pointless light, but I don't think it is accurate.
    - scotty79 11y ago
      > because new circumstances are similar enough to the old ones If all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail.
    - revdrmlkjr 11y ago
      >The lust for power never dies- men cannot have enough. No one will lift a hand to send it from his door, to give it warning, 'Power, never come again!” -Aeschylus
lmm 11y ago
Do you want there to be an act of congress every time someone invents a new product? There are checks and balances. The executive has oversight over these regulators. The judiciary can and does overrule them when they go too far.
hajile 11y ago
Why does the US think it can regulate an international currency? They wouldn't try the same sort of "define and regulate" tactics with other currencies. The only reason they do so here is because it enables them to grab power over an unclaimed, unregulated resource. Digital imperialism has become a very real practice (and in more areas than digital coinage).
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Why does the US think it can regulate an international currency? (1) Its not regulating an international currency, its regulating trade in a good in the US. (2) Even if it were regulating an international currency, its ability to do so, subject to any restrictions it has voluntarily accepted, e.g., by specific treaty, is inherent in the nature of sovereignty.
  - hajile 11y ago
    Your logic is based on the idea that the US has the merit to judge what is currency therefore it can judge what is currency. This circular and unfalsifiable assertion is not logical. Just because the US government claims a power does not mean that it has or should have that power. Further, what gives the US government the power to reclassify a currency as a traded commodity and simultaneously classify it as a currency along with a half-dozen other things? Finally, what reason does the US government provide other than unlawful assertion of power for the sake of power? (note: If there is some legitimate reason, then the correct procedure is to pass a law rather than the executive branch claiming authority that it does not have)
    - iamdave 11y ago
      Are you saying the United states lacks the authority to regulate commerce within her own borders?
      - hajile 11y ago
        Your question completely avoids the points I mentioned. If bitcoin is a currency, then it is a currency. If it is something else, then it is that thing. Every part of the executive branch wants a piece of the action, so they all claim that it is something different even though these definitions clash. The power to say what and how to regulate rests solely with congress. The passing of such a law requires justification and consensus. Nobody can agree on what bitcoin is and it is even more difficult to justify the regulation of bitcoin with anything other than "because we can". (sidebar) If you are interested in the authority to regulate commerce, then I suggest you google something to the effect of "commerce clause abuse" and realize that the federal government uses a broad interpretation of "commerce" and "regulate" to reach the conclusion that almost everything may be regulated by them instead of individual states.

Anyone else think it's weird that regulators of X can decide what is defined as X?

iamdave 11y ago

I don't follow. Isn't that the point?

aianus 11y ago
No, because they have a clear incentive to categorize everything as X so they can collect their taxes and fees and feel important and powerful.
- iamdave 11y ago
  If not them, then who?
  - aianus 11y ago
    Congress? The courts? Some third party at least.
    - iamdave 11y ago
      But...Legislatures and courts designate regulatory agencies, through enabling acts[1] that allows said agency to exist and which lists its jurisdiction and areas of responsibility. That's how regulatory bodies exist, it's what they're for. A court established regulatory body defining what it regulates is 100% within the scope of that body under the law. So in a way, this already happens. I'm not exactly seeing the issue here. Regulatory bodies don't just appear out of nowhere, they have to be established by a legislature or a court. You're asking for a feature that already exists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_act#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_act#United_States
- Frondo 11y ago
  It seldom happens that government agencies enact new regulations to "feel important and powerful". Far more often, they enact new regulations because new circumstances are similar enough to the old ones. It's usually the case that, to anyone with some knowledge of history, that the regulations are a good idea to put in place before people really start getting scammed/hurt/etc. To say that government agencies take action to "feel important and powerful" certainly casts the agencies in a trivial or pointless light, but I don't think it is accurate.
  - scotty79 11y ago
    > because new circumstances are similar enough to the old ones If all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail.
  - revdrmlkjr 11y ago
    >The lust for power never dies- men cannot have enough. No one will lift a hand to send it from his door, to give it warning, 'Power, never come again!” -Aeschylus

lmm 11y ago

Do you want there to be an act of congress every time someone invents a new product? There are checks and balances. The executive has oversight over these regulators. The judiciary can and does overrule them when they go too far.

hajile 11y ago

Why does the US think it can regulate an international currency? They wouldn't try the same sort of "define and regulate" tactics with other currencies. The only reason they do so here is because it enables them to grab power over an unclaimed, unregulated resource. Digital imperialism has become a very real practice (and in more areas than digital coinage).

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Why does the US think it can regulate an international currency? (1) Its not regulating an international currency, its regulating trade in a good in the US. (2) Even if it were regulating an international currency, its ability to do so, subject to any restrictions it has voluntarily accepted, e.g., by specific treaty, is inherent in the nature of sovereignty.
- hajile 11y ago
  Your logic is based on the idea that the US has the merit to judge what is currency therefore it can judge what is currency. This circular and unfalsifiable assertion is not logical. Just because the US government claims a power does not mean that it has or should have that power. Further, what gives the US government the power to reclassify a currency as a traded commodity and simultaneously classify it as a currency along with a half-dozen other things? Finally, what reason does the US government provide other than unlawful assertion of power for the sake of power? (note: If there is some legitimate reason, then the correct procedure is to pass a law rather than the executive branch claiming authority that it does not have)
  - iamdave 11y ago
    Are you saying the United states lacks the authority to regulate commerce within her own borders?
    - hajile 11y ago
      Your question completely avoids the points I mentioned. If bitcoin is a currency, then it is a currency. If it is something else, then it is that thing. Every part of the executive branch wants a piece of the action, so they all claim that it is something different even though these definitions clash. The power to say what and how to regulate rests solely with congress. The passing of such a law requires justification and consensus. Nobody can agree on what bitcoin is and it is even more difficult to justify the regulation of bitcoin with anything other than "because we can". (sidebar) If you are interested in the authority to regulate commerce, then I suggest you google something to the effect of "commerce clause abuse" and realize that the federal government uses a broad interpretation of "commerce" and "regulate" to reach the conclusion that almost everything may be regulated by them instead of individual states.