4 ms·

For me it’s much simpler and more fundamental than that. I think people can make their own choices and it’s not the state’s place to meddle in those choices. If

For me it’s much simpler and more fundamental than that. I think people can make their own choices and it’s not the state’s place to meddle in those choices. If someone wants to get a second mortgage on their house to buy an ICO, I say more power to them. Why shouldn’t people be able to take risks they’re comfortable with? Some of those risks might pay off. Regardless, even if it was the equivalent of flushing money down the toilet, I don’t see it as anyone’s right to interfere with that personal sovereignty.

orthecreedence 9y ago
> Why shouldn’t people be able to take risks they’re comfortable with? Because when enough of these nimrods makes the wrong decision at the same time, you get catastrophic failure and the rest of society is left holding the bag. They then go whining to the government which, in turn, enacts regulations to keep these things from happening again.
- tptacek 9y ago
  If we're just recapitulating the statism-vs-anarcho-capitalism argument, we can probably put a bow on this part of the thread and everyone agree to disagree.
  - orthecreedence 9y ago
    I don't think I'm arguing against rugged individualism as an ideology, moreso the belief that the choices we make as individuals don't affect the people around us, which seems to be the repeating mantra from anarcho-capitalists.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  You can go to Vegas right now and blow your life savings. Should that be illegal too? We need to stop the mollycoddling and let people make their own decisions (and yes not bail them out if those decisions turn out to be wrong).
  - tptacek 9y ago
    You can indeed do that. But very few people do, because when you try to mortgage your house to bet your life's savings at a craps table, your spouse refuses to sign the paperwork, because everyone knows that for a working class family, spending $10,000 at a casino means you have a problem. The same is not true of investments, which can be very persuasively marketed to normal people without gambling problems. Which is why the SEC cares so much about how securities are marketed and promoted, and why you can sell stock in virtually anything as long as you (1) register and (2) publish audited financials documenting how crazy your business idea is.
    - malvosenior 9y ago
      If the “problem” is marketing then the solution is counter-marketing, not regulation. Ideas should compete against each other and not be forced with the threat of violence (the state). You’re right in that we fundamentally disagree so won’t go anywhere here. I appreciate you arguing in good (enough) faith though.
  - orthecreedence 9y ago
    > you get catastrophic failure and the rest of society is left holding the bag. You didn't respond to what I said. When enough people make a large mistake, the effects go beyond just the individuals. At that point, it's no longer a "personal choice," it's damaging to the whole.
    - malvosenior 9y ago
      I did: “and yes not bail them out if those decisions turn out to be wrong” Of course any action at scale will have impact beyond the individual. I do not believe the state (or anyone else) can determine what’s best for everyone. Such a thing is not possible and instead is used as cover to remove personal freedom.
      - orthecreedence 9y ago
        Ah, I'm sorry, I missed that part of your response. In that case, your point is taken (I disagree, but that's fine).
pjc50 9y ago
> Why shouldn’t people be able to [invest in pyramid schemes] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Civil_War "The Albanian Civil War, also known as the Albanian rebellion, Albanian unrest or the Pyramid crisis, was a period of civil disorder in Albania in 1997, sparked by Ponzi scheme failures. The government was toppled and more than 2,000 people were killed."
- malvosenior 9y ago
  All meaningful progress comes with some risk. You can argue that the status quo is worth preserving but some of us will never agree with that.
tptacek 9y ago
Why can't people make their own choices and purchase any cancer drugs they choose, regardless of whether the FDA has vetted them at ludicrous expense? Why can't people make their own choices and buy poultry off the back of a van rather than from an FDA-inspected distribution chain? Why can't people make their own choices and dine at restaurants that can offer lower prices in exchange for not undergoing inspections, or, for that matter, city building code inspections? Believe it or not: having invested in more than one local food venture, those expenses are intimidating and a blocking issue. You can believe all regulations are pointless and that the market would handle those issues better than the state. I don't agree, but you'll have an intellectually coherent argument. Otherwise, you should find an argument specific to the particular regulation that's troubling you today.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  I would make all of those arguments so I guess I’m intellectually coherent:)
  - tptacek 9y ago
    That's totally fine. I do not even a little bit agree with you, but it's fine to be a hard libertarian or an ancap. But most people aren't ancaps, so a persuasive argument against ICO regulation is probably one that doesn't depend on your audience themselves being ancaps.
    - malvosenior 9y ago
      I think you’re greatly overestimating the popularity of your opinion. If a ton of people didn’t agree with me the SEC wouldn’t need to step in and put a stop to it. It’s that so many people want to do this that they are now meddling.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        I absolutely agree that lots of non-ancaps think the SEC should stay out of ICO regulation. But so far as I can tell, they haven't these arguments through. I've seen only two forms of pro-free-ICO argument on this thread: (1) Special pleading arguments that suggest that despite the fact that tech startups have little to no inventory, trivially simple expenses, no financing obligations outside their equity raises, and, for the forseeable future, no significant revenue --- that is, despite the fact that tech startups have virtually none of the attributes that make producing audited financials expensive --- they should be exempt from SEC disclosure rules. (2) Arguments suggesting that adults should be free to enter into contracts without protections because regulations have been obsoleted by the Internet. Argument (2) I get, and acknowledge. I do not agree with it, but fine. Argument (1) though makes no sense, and if someone would take the time to pursue it carefully, I'd be thankful.
s73ver_ 9y ago
The state isn't meddling in those choices. The state is simply saying that if you're going to offer a security, you have to disclose things about it. Thus, enabling people to make those choices.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  The state getting to classify whatever it feels like as a “security” (with all the attached legal restrictions) is meddling.

orthecreedence 9y ago

> Why shouldn’t people be able to take risks they’re comfortable with? Because when enough of these nimrods makes the wrong decision at the same time, you get catastrophic failure and the rest of society is left holding the bag. They then go whining to the government which, in turn, enacts regulations to keep these things from happening again.

tptacek 9y ago
If we're just recapitulating the statism-vs-anarcho-capitalism argument, we can probably put a bow on this part of the thread and everyone agree to disagree.
- orthecreedence 9y ago
  I don't think I'm arguing against rugged individualism as an ideology, moreso the belief that the choices we make as individuals don't affect the people around us, which seems to be the repeating mantra from anarcho-capitalists.
malvosenior 9y ago
You can go to Vegas right now and blow your life savings. Should that be illegal too? We need to stop the mollycoddling and let people make their own decisions (and yes not bail them out if those decisions turn out to be wrong).
- tptacek 9y ago
  You can indeed do that. But very few people do, because when you try to mortgage your house to bet your life's savings at a craps table, your spouse refuses to sign the paperwork, because everyone knows that for a working class family, spending $10,000 at a casino means you have a problem. The same is not true of investments, which can be very persuasively marketed to normal people without gambling problems. Which is why the SEC cares so much about how securities are marketed and promoted, and why you can sell stock in virtually anything as long as you (1) register and (2) publish audited financials documenting how crazy your business idea is.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    If the “problem” is marketing then the solution is counter-marketing, not regulation. Ideas should compete against each other and not be forced with the threat of violence (the state). You’re right in that we fundamentally disagree so won’t go anywhere here. I appreciate you arguing in good (enough) faith though.
- orthecreedence 9y ago
  > you get catastrophic failure and the rest of society is left holding the bag. You didn't respond to what I said. When enough people make a large mistake, the effects go beyond just the individuals. At that point, it's no longer a "personal choice," it's damaging to the whole.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    I did: “and yes not bail them out if those decisions turn out to be wrong” Of course any action at scale will have impact beyond the individual. I do not believe the state (or anyone else) can determine what’s best for everyone. Such a thing is not possible and instead is used as cover to remove personal freedom.
    - orthecreedence 9y ago
      Ah, I'm sorry, I missed that part of your response. In that case, your point is taken (I disagree, but that's fine).

pjc50 9y ago

> Why shouldn’t people be able to [invest in pyramid schemes] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Civil_War "The Albanian Civil War, also known as the Albanian rebellion, Albanian unrest or the Pyramid crisis, was a period of civil disorder in Albania in 1997, sparked by Ponzi scheme failures. The government was toppled and more than 2,000 people were killed."

malvosenior 9y ago
All meaningful progress comes with some risk. You can argue that the status quo is worth preserving but some of us will never agree with that.

tptacek 9y ago

Why can't people make their own choices and purchase any cancer drugs they choose, regardless of whether the FDA has vetted them at ludicrous expense? Why can't people make their own choices and buy poultry off the back of a van rather than from an FDA-inspected distribution chain? Why can't people make their own choices and dine at restaurants that can offer lower prices in exchange for not undergoing inspections, or, for that matter, city building code inspections? Believe it or not: having invested in more than one local food venture, those expenses are intimidating and a blocking issue. You can believe all regulations are pointless and that the market would handle those issues better than the state. I don't agree, but you'll have an intellectually coherent argument. Otherwise, you should find an argument specific to the particular regulation that's troubling you today.

malvosenior 9y ago
I would make all of those arguments so I guess I’m intellectually coherent:)
- tptacek 9y ago
  That's totally fine. I do not even a little bit agree with you, but it's fine to be a hard libertarian or an ancap. But most people aren't ancaps, so a persuasive argument against ICO regulation is probably one that doesn't depend on your audience themselves being ancaps.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    I think you’re greatly overestimating the popularity of your opinion. If a ton of people didn’t agree with me the SEC wouldn’t need to step in and put a stop to it. It’s that so many people want to do this that they are now meddling.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      I absolutely agree that lots of non-ancaps think the SEC should stay out of ICO regulation. But so far as I can tell, they haven't these arguments through. I've seen only two forms of pro-free-ICO argument on this thread: (1) Special pleading arguments that suggest that despite the fact that tech startups have little to no inventory, trivially simple expenses, no financing obligations outside their equity raises, and, for the forseeable future, no significant revenue --- that is, despite the fact that tech startups have virtually none of the attributes that make producing audited financials expensive --- they should be exempt from SEC disclosure rules. (2) Arguments suggesting that adults should be free to enter into contracts without protections because regulations have been obsoleted by the Internet. Argument (2) I get, and acknowledge. I do not agree with it, but fine. Argument (1) though makes no sense, and if someone would take the time to pursue it carefully, I'd be thankful.

s73ver_ 9y ago

The state isn't meddling in those choices. The state is simply saying that if you're going to offer a security, you have to disclose things about it. Thus, enabling people to make those choices.

malvosenior 9y ago
The state getting to classify whatever it feels like as a “security” (with all the attached legal restrictions) is meddling.