3 ms·

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 ass

by 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.

by hajile 11y ago

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.