3 ms·
I don't agree with your first point, but it sounds like the basis for a coherent argument. However I think your second point is arguing against a statement the
by bjackman 7y ago
I don't agree with your first point, but it sounds like the basis for a coherent argument.
However I think your second point is arguing against a statement the article doesn't make at all. The article is really arguing about making it possible to prove guilt, not just seizing everyone's assets and then checking if they're dirty!
- CryptoPunk 7y ago>>The article is really arguing about making it possible to prove guilt That's not how free societies work. The state must find evidence of a crime and then use that evidence to prove the crime occurred. It cannot require everyone to document their activity, and pass it off to authorities, under pain of imprisonment, so that authorities are given evidence of crimes as they occur. The idea that anything not vetted by the state should be suspected of being "dirty", and shunned, is a dangerous ideological framework that favors tyranny and extreme centralization of power.