3 ms·

Agreed. Regulating “dirty money” is equivalent to regulating speech, and is therefore unconstitutional.

• ur-whale 8y ago
  Assuming you're not being sarcastic: Hear Hear.
  • someguydave 8y ago
    No I'm not being sarcastic, I'm amazed that Americans put up with the level of government intrusion in our financial lives.
• mindslight 8y ago
  The parallels are strong: - Lazily creates an appearance of addressing a problem by going after a sometimes-associated activity - Collateral damage to activities that aren't necessarily wrong, but that upset some group - Only affects the little guy (to the major players, it's just a cost of doing business) - Creates a purportedly-neutral cover on what is essentially political persecution - Based on the God delusion that assumes some ambient authority is capable of passing correct judgment on every situation
  • someguydave 8y ago
    Don't forget: - Rationalizes the creation of a massive bureaucracy to control (and centralize) what beforehand was considered normal and local in scope. - Rationalizes universal surveillance by unaccountable individuals in federal bureaucracies against the entire population. This can and has been abused in the case of bank disclosures required by anti-money laundering laws: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-arrests-treasury-employee-accused-of-leaking-bank-records-on-manafort-gates/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-arrests-treasury-... (Note that the so-called "suspicious activity reports" she leaked were merely transactions that met some criteria like being above a threshold amount).
• chatmasta 8y ago
  This brings to mind an article, "Money Laundering is Financial Thoughtcrime." [0] [0] https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/money-laundering-is-financial-thoughtcrime https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/money-laundering-is-f...