4 ms·

"Well the 13th amendment does deny you a right to sell yourself into slavery, so you're not substantiating your claim that these laws don't infringe on your rig

"Well the 13th amendment does deny you a right to sell yourself into slavery, so you're not substantiating your claim that these laws don't infringe on your right to privacy and free contract." I'm saying your complaint is like that. Yes, it does prevent you from doing that. Nobody cares, however. Just like you are trying to complain that you are prevented from buying a security where you get absolutely no insight, knowledge, or reporting whatsoever. I just cannot take that complaint seriously at all, and any legitimate investment doesn't either.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
You wrote: >>No, they don't. Now you admit that they do. So you're resorting to misleading rhetoric to try to blunt the common sense argument I'm making, which is that in a free society, no one has a moral right to tell someone else how they can spend their money. People should have more humility, and not assume their understanding of the world is so far superior to the common man's that they have a right to exert their will on the common man. The call for these types of regulatory restrictions appeals to shallow unthinking narcissism, and nothing more, which is why it needs to be supported with inappropriate and inflammatory comparisons to selling yourself into slavery.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  You're not making a common sense argument. Your argument is literally that you're upset that you cannot buy into investments which give you absolutely no insight, information, or any kind of knowledge that would let you actually be able to make an informed decision. That is not common sense one bit, and is just as silly as complaining that you can't sell yourself into slavery. Nobody is going to take an argument like yours seriously.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    It's common sense that a free society shouldn't restrict what someone can invest in. You have no idea what insights I have in a potential investment so please do not presume to know. I do not need or want the government to prohibit me from making an investment before it has had a chance to vet it. What you're advocating is illiberal and paternalistic, and your presumptions about the level of insight that goes into investment made into unregistered offerings are crude and baseless over-simplifications. >>Nobody is going to take an argument like yours seriously. That's not true and I don't believe you think it's true. You're literally comparing investing in a speculative instrument not vetted by a government agency with selling yourself into slavery to try to dull the appeal of my argument. If you thought no one would agree with me, you wouldn't be going to such extreme lengths to counter my claims. You would be comfortable letting them stand on their own merit.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "You're literally comparing investing in a speculative instrument" Wrong. You're complaining about investments that give you absolutely no knowledge and no information about themselves, making you unable to make an informed decision. That's not even gambling, so don't try to call it investing. "If you thought no one would agree with me, you wouldn't be going to such extreme lengths to counter my claims. You would be comfortable letting them stand on their own merit." That line is absolutely false. If it had any merit whatsoever, this wouldn't be an internet forum.
      - CryptoPunk 8y ago
        You have no idea how much information the investments you want prohibited give about themselves. Not being registered with the SEC does not imply providing no information, and you want everything not registered with the SEC to be banned. Your ridiculous characterizations of non-registered investments are baseless/dishonest and intended to mislead people about the nature of these controls. The fact that you have to resort to this, and to comparisons of buying an unregistered investment to selling yourself into slavery, shows that you don't have a solid set of arguments to support your position, and that you're prioritizing your agenda ahead of the truth. And like I said, your actions belie your claim that no one agrees with me. If you thought no one would agree with me, you wouldn't be going to such extreme lengths to counter my claims. You would be comfortable letting them stand on their own merit.

CryptoPunk 8y ago

You wrote: >>No, they don't. Now you admit that they do. So you're resorting to misleading rhetoric to try to blunt the common sense argument I'm making, which is that in a free society, no one has a moral right to tell someone else how they can spend their money. People should have more humility, and not assume their understanding of the world is so far superior to the common man's that they have a right to exert their will on the common man. The call for these types of regulatory restrictions appeals to shallow unthinking narcissism, and nothing more, which is why it needs to be supported with inappropriate and inflammatory comparisons to selling yourself into slavery.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
You're not making a common sense argument. Your argument is literally that you're upset that you cannot buy into investments which give you absolutely no insight, information, or any kind of knowledge that would let you actually be able to make an informed decision. That is not common sense one bit, and is just as silly as complaining that you can't sell yourself into slavery. Nobody is going to take an argument like yours seriously.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  It's common sense that a free society shouldn't restrict what someone can invest in. You have no idea what insights I have in a potential investment so please do not presume to know. I do not need or want the government to prohibit me from making an investment before it has had a chance to vet it. What you're advocating is illiberal and paternalistic, and your presumptions about the level of insight that goes into investment made into unregistered offerings are crude and baseless over-simplifications. >>Nobody is going to take an argument like yours seriously. That's not true and I don't believe you think it's true. You're literally comparing investing in a speculative instrument not vetted by a government agency with selling yourself into slavery to try to dull the appeal of my argument. If you thought no one would agree with me, you wouldn't be going to such extreme lengths to counter my claims. You would be comfortable letting them stand on their own merit.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "You're literally comparing investing in a speculative instrument" Wrong. You're complaining about investments that give you absolutely no knowledge and no information about themselves, making you unable to make an informed decision. That's not even gambling, so don't try to call it investing. "If you thought no one would agree with me, you wouldn't be going to such extreme lengths to counter my claims. You would be comfortable letting them stand on their own merit." That line is absolutely false. If it had any merit whatsoever, this wouldn't be an internet forum.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      You have no idea how much information the investments you want prohibited give about themselves. Not being registered with the SEC does not imply providing no information, and you want everything not registered with the SEC to be banned. Your ridiculous characterizations of non-registered investments are baseless/dishonest and intended to mislead people about the nature of these controls. The fact that you have to resort to this, and to comparisons of buying an unregistered investment to selling yourself into slavery, shows that you don't have a solid set of arguments to support your position, and that you're prioritizing your agenda ahead of the truth. And like I said, your actions belie your claim that no one agrees with me. If you thought no one would agree with me, you wouldn't be going to such extreme lengths to counter my claims. You would be comfortable letting them stand on their own merit.