4 ms·

You don't think individuals should have the choice to invest their own money where they please?

by darawk 9y ago

StavrosK 9y ago
Since when do individuals know what's good for them? That's why we have regulation.
- darawk 9y ago
  They don't. But they ought to have the right to decide what's good for them, even if they're wrong.
  - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
    But it's government's job to make sure its citizens don't get conned. People have the right to decide to join a suicide cult, but also the government needs to stop the cult because otherwise all these innocent yet naive people will die.
    - darawk 9y ago
      Why is it the government's job to ensure people don't get conned?
      - wheelerwj 9y ago
        because thats we as a society agreed was the governments job.
        darawk 9y ago
        You are arguing what is. I'm arguing what ought be. I believe it is a violation of fundamental human rights to prevent people from doing with their own property what they like, provided that so doing does not impinge upon the rights of others. My right to be taken in by any scam I choose ought to be absolute. If, ex-post, I can show that I was conned, I ought to receive compensation for that, and maybe the perpetrators ought to go to jail. But the government shouldn't stop me from doing it.
        cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
        That's your opinion. I'm not saying there's anything wrong about it, but it's just that a modern capitalist government's priority is to make sure its society stays stable (unless you think its priority should be to seek chaos) because that's what governments were built to do--to provide stability. What you're not taking into account is macroeconomics. When you let anyone do whatever they want, it is very likely that the rich will get richer (because they are more informed) and the poor will get poorer. And with that comes corruption. That's why the government steps in to break off organizations that become too large and make sure things like antitrust don't happen. If you think the society is unjust, first try to learn WHY things work that way, that way you may either come up with a solution that can solve it, or go build your own nation, or at the least understand what's going on.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- DennisP 9y ago
  I don't think that's the main reason we have regulation. Preventing individuals from externalizing costs to others, against their will, is more common and much more justifiable. The some obvious examples are environmental and food safety. Another is financial regulations to prevent "too big to fail" institutions from taking wild risks that result in bailouts with taxpayer funds.
  - s17n 9y ago
    Food safety regulation has nothing to do with unpriced externality and everything to do with people not knowing what's good for them.
    - DennisP 9y ago
      Food safety regulation isn't about making me to eat my vegetables. It's about making sure my vegetables aren't contaminated in ways that I can't reasonably detect. A producer who skimps on food safety can save costs, and the externality is people getting sick, through no fault of their own.
      - s17n 9y ago
        That is not what "unpriced externality" means. And if your vegetables being "contaminated in ways that you can't reasonably detect" isn't a case of you not knowing what is good for you, I don't know what is.
- wheelerwj 9y ago
  thats not at all why we have regulation?!? we have regulation to prevent people from being misled.
amluto 9y ago
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that you should not be able to sell arbitrary securities to the general public. If you assume that everyone is an informed, rational actor, then the rules are silly. I would argue that this is an incorrect assumption.
- darawk 9y ago
  Of course you are correct. Almost nobody is an informed, rational actor in the fullest sense. However, it's my view that the state ought to view people as such, because to do otherwise is a fundamental violation of human rights (my view of human rights, that is).
  - mmalone 9y ago
    Still easy to argue that no rational person would do x, therefore x should not be allowed. Really I think it's just too hard to scale the protections and legal mechanisms. ICO solves some (not all) of the scalability problems.
  - abecedarius 9y ago
    I basically agree. It's unjust that anyone can go broke in Vegas but only rich or connected people can get a chance at pre-IPO returns. I'd support the accredited-investor thing more if it were more like you had to pass a financial rationality test and wait through a cooling-off period. It'd be undignified, but how about an official SEC qualifying poker league?
    - darawk 9y ago
      Ya, I think a financial literacy test could be appropriate, although that's not my preferred solution. I'd prefer it all be mediated by civil law. That is, everyone is free to do what they will: create financial products, purchase financial products. But the court system would intervene in cases of clear deceit, or manipulation of naivete (obviously there's some subjectivity here, but I think that's ok).
      - 9y ago

You don't think individuals should have the choice to invest their own money where they please?

by darawk 9y ago

You don't think individuals should have the choice to invest their own money where they please?

StavrosK 9y ago

Since when do individuals know what's good for them? That's why we have regulation.

darawk 9y ago
They don't. But they ought to have the right to decide what's good for them, even if they're wrong.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  But it's government's job to make sure its citizens don't get conned. People have the right to decide to join a suicide cult, but also the government needs to stop the cult because otherwise all these innocent yet naive people will die.
  - darawk 9y ago
    Why is it the government's job to ensure people don't get conned?
    - wheelerwj 9y ago
      because thats we as a society agreed was the governments job.
      - darawk 9y ago
        You are arguing what is. I'm arguing what ought be. I believe it is a violation of fundamental human rights to prevent people from doing with their own property what they like, provided that so doing does not impinge upon the rights of others. My right to be taken in by any scam I choose ought to be absolute. If, ex-post, I can show that I was conned, I ought to receive compensation for that, and maybe the perpetrators ought to go to jail. But the government shouldn't stop me from doing it.
        cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
        That's your opinion. I'm not saying there's anything wrong about it, but it's just that a modern capitalist government's priority is to make sure its society stays stable (unless you think its priority should be to seek chaos) because that's what governments were built to do--to provide stability. What you're not taking into account is macroeconomics. When you let anyone do whatever they want, it is very likely that the rich will get richer (because they are more informed) and the poor will get poorer. And with that comes corruption. That's why the government steps in to break off organizations that become too large and make sure things like antitrust don't happen. If you think the society is unjust, first try to learn WHY things work that way, that way you may either come up with a solution that can solve it, or go build your own nation, or at the least understand what's going on.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
DennisP 9y ago
I don't think that's the main reason we have regulation. Preventing individuals from externalizing costs to others, against their will, is more common and much more justifiable. The some obvious examples are environmental and food safety. Another is financial regulations to prevent "too big to fail" institutions from taking wild risks that result in bailouts with taxpayer funds.
- s17n 9y ago
  Food safety regulation has nothing to do with unpriced externality and everything to do with people not knowing what's good for them.
  - DennisP 9y ago
    Food safety regulation isn't about making me to eat my vegetables. It's about making sure my vegetables aren't contaminated in ways that I can't reasonably detect. A producer who skimps on food safety can save costs, and the externality is people getting sick, through no fault of their own.
    - s17n 9y ago
      That is not what "unpriced externality" means. And if your vegetables being "contaminated in ways that you can't reasonably detect" isn't a case of you not knowing what is good for you, I don't know what is.
wheelerwj 9y ago
thats not at all why we have regulation?!? we have regulation to prevent people from being misled.

amluto 9y ago

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that you should not be able to sell arbitrary securities to the general public. If you assume that everyone is an informed, rational actor, then the rules are silly. I would argue that this is an incorrect assumption.

darawk 9y ago
Of course you are correct. Almost nobody is an informed, rational actor in the fullest sense. However, it's my view that the state ought to view people as such, because to do otherwise is a fundamental violation of human rights (my view of human rights, that is).
- mmalone 9y ago
  Still easy to argue that no rational person would do x, therefore x should not be allowed. Really I think it's just too hard to scale the protections and legal mechanisms. ICO solves some (not all) of the scalability problems.
- abecedarius 9y ago
  I basically agree. It's unjust that anyone can go broke in Vegas but only rich or connected people can get a chance at pre-IPO returns. I'd support the accredited-investor thing more if it were more like you had to pass a financial rationality test and wait through a cooling-off period. It'd be undignified, but how about an official SEC qualifying poker league?
  - darawk 9y ago
    Ya, I think a financial literacy test could be appropriate, although that's not my preferred solution. I'd prefer it all be mediated by civil law. That is, everyone is free to do what they will: create financial products, purchase financial products. But the court system would intervene in cases of clear deceit, or manipulation of naivete (obviously there's some subjectivity here, but I think that's ok).
    - 9y ago