5 ms·

I disagree vehemently to this proposition. I have never agreed or voted to get those regulations in place. They are not voluntary. But anyone falling for tether

I disagree vehemently to this proposition. I have never agreed or voted to get those regulations in place. They are not voluntary. But anyone falling for tether today is making an individual decision.

s73ver_ 9y ago
Just because you personally weren't consulted on those regulations doesn't mean that they weren't come to by people who were democratically elected. And you agreed to abide by the laws of a jurisdiction by living there. Otherwise, what's to stop you from saying, "I never agreed not to kill people"?
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > And you agreed to abide by the laws of a jurisdiction by living there. Otherwise, what's to stop you from saying, "I never agreed not to kill people"? Nobody agreed to not kill people either. Thats why killing is also legal in many circumstances. Also arguing that we all agreed to the rules there in would mean that if slavery were legal it would be ok, becase we all agreed to it. But thats another topic. The point is that if I believe in an institution without regulation the option between me and that institution is severed by an unrelated third party. I dont want to ask the SEC any permission to buy tethers.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    "Also arguing that we all agreed to the rules there in would mean that if slavery were legal it would be ok, becase we all agreed to it" No. That's a poor argument that, in this case, falsely equivocates slavery with financial regulation. "I dont want to ask the SEC any permission to buy tethers." That's not what's happening in the least. But if Tether is a scam, then it will be shut down, as it should be. And no amount of "freedom" will justify running a scam on other people.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      > No. That's a poor argument that, in this case, falsely equivocates slavery with financial regulation. You say its a poor argument, but you dont say why. > That's not what's happening in the least. But if Tether is a scam, then it will be shut down, as it should be. And no amount of "freedom" will justify running a scam on other people. Tether will crash itself if it doesnt have the money its supposed to have, we don't need the sec for that ,the same way the SEC didnt start the 2008 meltdown or Enron's demise. Its even more egregious if you consider tether is not in the US and affects non-US citizens the most. So why has the SEC the power to intervene in other countries with people that haven't elected them? Its purely an act on a position of power, not on agreed rules, and thats some of the spirit that sorrounds crypto. Crypo will be more mature if it deals with this problems without government intervention.
monktastic1 9y ago
> I disagree vehemently to this proposition. I haven't made a proposition. I just pointed out that historically, when societies have made decisions about this sort of thing, they've generally decided that such individuals require protection via regulations. In general, most of the laws we are expected to follow are not ones we personally agreed to or voted on. I'm not sure that makes them less "organic." If you're arguing that you should not be expected to follow laws that you didn't personally agree to, I think that's a bigger conversation.
- mdpopescu 9y ago
  Actually, historically all governments started through conquest (military victory), not social contracts. Societies didn't make any decision - governments did, and societies accepted the status quo.
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    But governments didn't invent society from atomized individuals through conquest. All government did was add another layer in addition to the organically developed pre-existing social contracts.
Slansitartop 9y ago
>> You could say that humanity has repeatedly and organically come to a solution broadly known as government and regulation. > I disagree vehemently to this proposition. I have never agreed or voted to get those regulations in place. They are not voluntary. But anyone falling for tether today is making an individual decision. Nevertheless, you benefit from them. It's not like you have to sign up to the regulation that makes your murder illegal. Don't you think it would be foolish to expect every generation to have to rediscover, through trial and error, the benefits of society and government?
- conanbatt 9y ago
  An important distinction has to be made between law abiding and regulation. Law against murder is: if you do it, you will be jailed. Regulation against murder is: you cant have anything that harms another human being, and we need to check you up regularly to make sure you haven't killed anyone. Regulation is not abiding for the law. Thats what lawsuits are about. Regulation is about preventing law to be broken with preventive measures. > Don't you think it would be foolish to expect every generation to have to rediscover, through trial and error, the benefits of society and government? I wish we had that, but we can't, we have to live entire generations with laws designed by previous ones. Isn't the drug war on the US a prime example of that? If you put it up for a vote, the majority would vote to make it legal or not prosecute it. But this is not a topic about the mere existence of government, its about an ecosystem that was born and fueled about how the government and the banks crap on people, and trying to make it better with banks and government is going the other way.
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    I think you're confused about the differences between a law and a regulation. As I understand it, at least in the US context, regulations are rules specify the finer details of the implementation of a law. You can be jailed for the violation of a regulation [1]. > I wish we had that, but we can't, we have to live entire generations with laws designed by previous ones. There's an expression that describes your attitude, it's "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The thing about "the laws designed by previous [generations]" is that most of them are good, and the ones that aren't will eventually be abolished or modified, in a democratic society. > and trying to make it better The attempt is ignorant "disruption" that's repeating, word for word many of the long-solved mistakes of the past. If you want to make something better, you can't focus on the just problems of the current solution, but you also have to focus on all the problems the current solution already solved. To do otherwise is foolishness. [1] For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations#Enforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_... lists several instances.

s73ver_ 9y ago

Just because you personally weren't consulted on those regulations doesn't mean that they weren't come to by people who were democratically elected. And you agreed to abide by the laws of a jurisdiction by living there. Otherwise, what's to stop you from saying, "I never agreed not to kill people"?

conanbatt 9y ago
> And you agreed to abide by the laws of a jurisdiction by living there. Otherwise, what's to stop you from saying, "I never agreed not to kill people"? Nobody agreed to not kill people either. Thats why killing is also legal in many circumstances. Also arguing that we all agreed to the rules there in would mean that if slavery were legal it would be ok, becase we all agreed to it. But thats another topic. The point is that if I believe in an institution without regulation the option between me and that institution is severed by an unrelated third party. I dont want to ask the SEC any permission to buy tethers.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  "Also arguing that we all agreed to the rules there in would mean that if slavery were legal it would be ok, becase we all agreed to it" No. That's a poor argument that, in this case, falsely equivocates slavery with financial regulation. "I dont want to ask the SEC any permission to buy tethers." That's not what's happening in the least. But if Tether is a scam, then it will be shut down, as it should be. And no amount of "freedom" will justify running a scam on other people.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > No. That's a poor argument that, in this case, falsely equivocates slavery with financial regulation. You say its a poor argument, but you dont say why. > That's not what's happening in the least. But if Tether is a scam, then it will be shut down, as it should be. And no amount of "freedom" will justify running a scam on other people. Tether will crash itself if it doesnt have the money its supposed to have, we don't need the sec for that ,the same way the SEC didnt start the 2008 meltdown or Enron's demise. Its even more egregious if you consider tether is not in the US and affects non-US citizens the most. So why has the SEC the power to intervene in other countries with people that haven't elected them? Its purely an act on a position of power, not on agreed rules, and thats some of the spirit that sorrounds crypto. Crypo will be more mature if it deals with this problems without government intervention.

monktastic1 9y ago

> I disagree vehemently to this proposition. I haven't made a proposition. I just pointed out that historically, when societies have made decisions about this sort of thing, they've generally decided that such individuals require protection via regulations. In general, most of the laws we are expected to follow are not ones we personally agreed to or voted on. I'm not sure that makes them less "organic." If you're arguing that you should not be expected to follow laws that you didn't personally agree to, I think that's a bigger conversation.

mdpopescu 9y ago
Actually, historically all governments started through conquest (military victory), not social contracts. Societies didn't make any decision - governments did, and societies accepted the status quo.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  But governments didn't invent society from atomized individuals through conquest. All government did was add another layer in addition to the organically developed pre-existing social contracts.

Slansitartop 9y ago

>> You could say that humanity has repeatedly and organically come to a solution broadly known as government and regulation. > I disagree vehemently to this proposition. I have never agreed or voted to get those regulations in place. They are not voluntary. But anyone falling for tether today is making an individual decision. Nevertheless, you benefit from them. It's not like you have to sign up to the regulation that makes your murder illegal. Don't you think it would be foolish to expect every generation to have to rediscover, through trial and error, the benefits of society and government?

conanbatt 9y ago
An important distinction has to be made between law abiding and regulation. Law against murder is: if you do it, you will be jailed. Regulation against murder is: you cant have anything that harms another human being, and we need to check you up regularly to make sure you haven't killed anyone. Regulation is not abiding for the law. Thats what lawsuits are about. Regulation is about preventing law to be broken with preventive measures. > Don't you think it would be foolish to expect every generation to have to rediscover, through trial and error, the benefits of society and government? I wish we had that, but we can't, we have to live entire generations with laws designed by previous ones. Isn't the drug war on the US a prime example of that? If you put it up for a vote, the majority would vote to make it legal or not prosecute it. But this is not a topic about the mere existence of government, its about an ecosystem that was born and fueled about how the government and the banks crap on people, and trying to make it better with banks and government is going the other way.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  I think you're confused about the differences between a law and a regulation. As I understand it, at least in the US context, regulations are rules specify the finer details of the implementation of a law. You can be jailed for the violation of a regulation [1]. > I wish we had that, but we can't, we have to live entire generations with laws designed by previous ones. There's an expression that describes your attitude, it's "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The thing about "the laws designed by previous [generations]" is that most of them are good, and the ones that aren't will eventually be abolished or modified, in a democratic society. > and trying to make it better The attempt is ignorant "disruption" that's repeating, word for word many of the long-solved mistakes of the past. If you want to make something better, you can't focus on the just problems of the current solution, but you also have to focus on all the problems the current solution already solved. To do otherwise is foolishness. [1] For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations#Enforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_... lists several instances.