3 ms·

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 onl

by 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.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        Your idea that bitcoin is either legally currency or legally some other thing ignores reality: different laws can have different definitions of the same terms, and categories in the same law can be overlapping rather than exclusive. The idea that, for all legal purposes, bitcoin must either be "currency" and nothing else, out some other single thing and not "currency" is simply wrong as a matter of law. Particularly, as regards the CFTC action, note that currencies in general are commodities as that term related to CFTC authority, and that forex trading is already regulated by the CFTC. If you want to argue that some of the actions of executive bodies are inconsistent with the definitions in the statutes which give them regulatory authority, feel free to cite the statutes and do so.
icebraining 11y ago
The US is not regulating the currency, it's regulating how US citizens and companies use it. Coinflip is based in California. (By the way, I'm not disagreeing that the US has plenty of imperialistic tendencies. But this is not one such case.)
- hajile 11y ago
  What would be the effect of the US dictating how it's citizens can use the Euro? The US would be sued in international court and would lose. The only difference is that the international court chooses not to recognize the currency. No legal recognition is the legal excuse used by imperialists a century and a half ago and is the same excuse used in this case. Not recognizing legitimacy is no excuse (especially when the primary intention is greed and control).
  - icebraining 11y ago
    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which we're talking about, doesn't exactly dictate how its citizen can use Bitcoin, but Bitcoin derivatives and futures. And these are also regulated for Euro in the US, and so are derivatives of USD in European countries. So Bitcoin isn't really being more regulated than the Euro; just treated as a different class of regulable things.
    - hajile 11y ago
      There are a couple notes about this regulation. The first is that bitcoin is not subject to many problems that other currencies have (eg. inflationary devaluation or being tied closely to a country or group of countries). The second is the nature of the ITC and other agencies treat foreign currencies differently (as bitcoin is without representation). The third and most disturbing is that normal regulations would not work (because it doesn't suffer from being tied to some country or countries). For this reason, the government decided that the only way to exert control was reclassification. Even if we decide that this is somehow justifiable (no good reason has been given and I believe there is no such reason), then the proper process is to pass a bill through congress rather than the executive branch once again deciding that it can do whatever it pleases.

by hajile 11y ago

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.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      Your idea that bitcoin is either legally currency or legally some other thing ignores reality: different laws can have different definitions of the same terms, and categories in the same law can be overlapping rather than exclusive. The idea that, for all legal purposes, bitcoin must either be "currency" and nothing else, out some other single thing and not "currency" is simply wrong as a matter of law. Particularly, as regards the CFTC action, note that currencies in general are commodities as that term related to CFTC authority, and that forex trading is already regulated by the CFTC. If you want to argue that some of the actions of executive bodies are inconsistent with the definitions in the statutes which give them regulatory authority, feel free to cite the statutes and do so.

icebraining 11y ago

The US is not regulating the currency, it's regulating how US citizens and companies use it. Coinflip is based in California. (By the way, I'm not disagreeing that the US has plenty of imperialistic tendencies. But this is not one such case.)

hajile 11y ago
What would be the effect of the US dictating how it's citizens can use the Euro? The US would be sued in international court and would lose. The only difference is that the international court chooses not to recognize the currency. No legal recognition is the legal excuse used by imperialists a century and a half ago and is the same excuse used in this case. Not recognizing legitimacy is no excuse (especially when the primary intention is greed and control).
- icebraining 11y ago
  The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which we're talking about, doesn't exactly dictate how its citizen can use Bitcoin, but Bitcoin derivatives and futures. And these are also regulated for Euro in the US, and so are derivatives of USD in European countries. So Bitcoin isn't really being more regulated than the Euro; just treated as a different class of regulable things.
  - hajile 11y ago
    There are a couple notes about this regulation. The first is that bitcoin is not subject to many problems that other currencies have (eg. inflationary devaluation or being tied closely to a country or group of countries). The second is the nature of the ITC and other agencies treat foreign currencies differently (as bitcoin is without representation). The third and most disturbing is that normal regulations would not work (because it doesn't suffer from being tied to some country or countries). For this reason, the government decided that the only way to exert control was reclassification. Even if we decide that this is somehow justifiable (no good reason has been given and I believe there is no such reason), then the proper process is to pass a bill through congress rather than the executive branch once again deciding that it can do whatever it pleases.