4 ms·
You're intelligent and thus should be free. But the law can't create multiple classes of people with different sets of rights, so to protect the stupid, who can
by CryptoPunk 9y ago
You're intelligent and thus should be free. But the law can't create multiple classes of people with different sets of rights, so to protect the stupid, who can't handle that amount of freedom, your rights need to be limited as well.
^ I assume this is how supporters of such laws think about the issue.
- Nursie 9y agoWould you dispute that a lot of people are idiots? Would you dispute that even (otherwise) smart people can and do get taken in by dodgy financial schemes? Regulations are there for good reasons...
- CryptoPunk 9y agoI would dispute that either of these justify banning people from making decisions for themselves on what to spend/invest their money in. If people really don't want the responsibility of freedom we can bring back indentured servitude, where people sign away their rights.
- Nursie 9y agoAh, so protecting people from scams is now banning people from their own decisions? I suppose we should drop all laws about fraud really, why should we ban people from freely transacting with "microsoft" support services who just want to help them with their computer?
- CryptoPunk 9y agoBut banning them from participating in an entire class of financial transactions is not just protecting them from scams. There are token sales that are not scams. It's prohibiting them from entering into legitimate investments that simply don't have government approval (e.g. a securities sale that doesn't ask them for their ID, and thus doesn't meet securities regulations).
- Nursie 9y agoAt this point there are enough scams to make people cheer for the ban. Perhaps a better answer would be regulation in a similar way to more traditional IPOs. >> an securities sale that doesn't ask them for their ID, and thus doesn't meet securities regulations Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and regulated, is needed. I know, this circumscribes some of the allure of the whole area - that it's free of regulation, that it democratises finance etc etc. But like other avenues in life, perhaps we are being shown why the regulations exists in meatspace in the first place. BTW I'm not trying to argue that all regulations and government actions are correct and useful, I'm very sympathetic to the idea that we are over-governed and over-regulated, in lots of ways. But perhaps not here.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoPeople support all sorts of things that reduce rights. Doesn't make it okay.. >>Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and regulated, is needed. I don't believe we should be limiting other people's right to privacy and to exchange digital tokens (not guns or tanks) under any circumstance. I think accepting the right of society to impose these limitations on individuals is accepting servility for everyone, and I find that enormously dangerous and harmful.
- Nursie 9y agoWhereas I think that not regulating this space is a great recipe for scams, crashes and monetary instability.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoCryptocurrency is something people choose to go into knowing it's resistant to regulation by design. If they want to avoid the risks associated with fewer regulations, they can remain in the traditional financial market. But yes we've reached an empasse. We fundamentally don't relate on the issue of a third party essentially dictating to an individual what risks they may subject themselves to.
- mcguire 9y agoCan Libertarianism Sustain a Fraud Standard? (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2382215 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2382215)
- Nursie 9y agoOK so I got about two thirds of the way through that before my brain rebelled and my focus went elsewhere. Thanks for the link though, that was an interesting read. I was aware that "Caveat Emptor" was a bit of a libertarian tenet, and that people like to rely on things like reputation to enforce good trading practice, but that is an interesting explanation of why a libertarian may be against any and all government interference in even blatant fraud.
- lettergram 9y agoUgh what? If you're not directly hurting someone there shouldn't be a law against it. For instance, a law against DUIs make sense, it's so you don't kill people. A law requiring seat belt wearing - not so much.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoI agree. Just relaying what I believe the common logic is for supporters of such bans.
- GotAnyMegadeth 9y agoUnless you have state run health care, in which case a law enforcing seat belt wearing (I assume that's what you meant?) could save everyone money.
- Joeboy 9y agoUnless it decreases short-term fatalities.
- GotAnyMegadeth 9y agoHello! Sorry I'm a bit confused by your reply, do you mean if it ONLY decreases short term ones and not long term?
- Joeboy 9y agoI just mean there will be additional costs to the state if it means more people survive car crashes and therefore need medical care. But those costs might be outweighed if longer-term survivors tend to have less severe injuries.
- irishsultan 9y agoIf you don't wear a seatbelt and are in an accident you are much more likely to hurt others than if you do wear a seatbelt.