4 ms·

At least you'd have due process and couldn't be deplatformed for legal activity. Now you have neither. The current system has zero privacy, so no change there.

At least you'd have due process and couldn't be deplatformed for legal activity. Now you have neither. The current system has zero privacy, so no change there. Not seeing the downside. Federally illegal activity like marijuana wouldn't benefit, but most things would.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Technically, any occurring "federally illegal" activity is just not successfully policed criminal activity. (States can't actually make something legal the federal government says is not legal. They can just decline to use their own resources to police it.) Generally speaking, most people would consider "not usable in crime" to be a feature rather than a bug. ;)
- sneak 6y ago
  I don’t think there is as quite widespread consensus that all federal crimes are legitimately crime as you seem to think. Marijuana sales, for example, seem extremely popular. Just because there’s a law in place at some remote level of jurisdiction doesn’t mean it’s just, or has popular support.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Widespread consensus doesn't determine what is and isn't a crime. The law does. Until the federal law changes, marijuana sales are a federal crime. Technically speaking, no state can actually "legalize" it.
    - sneak 6y ago
      You’re absolutely right, of course. Widespread consensus heavily influences prosecutorial discretion though, which determines in practice what is or isn’t permitted by society. The law is not a computer program, and it is applied entirely arbitrarily.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > I don’t think there is as quite widespread consensus that all federal crimes are legitimately crime as you seem to think. Your comment makes no sense at all. For something to be a crime it has to be explicitly defined in law. Consensus has zero to do with it. Either there is a law, or there isn't. The whole point of rule of law is that you don't get to pick and choose which law applies to you in a given day of the week.
    - sneak 6y ago
      There are many marijuana shops in the United States, and many millions of customers of those shops who disagree with you. Also, Prohibition. The law is not some inviolate thing in a society. Many millions will happily ignore unjust laws if they feel they shouldn’t be laws. More alcohol was consumed during Prohibition in the US than before it was banned.
    - krageon 6y ago
      > The whole point of rule of law is that you don't get to pick and choose which law applies to you in a given day of the week. If the law is not enforced, then it does not exist. The only real law is the one that you see day-to-day. So shooting black people is fine (in the US), and you can buy weed in shops (in a few places).
orangecat 6y ago
At least you'd have due process and couldn't be deplatformed for legal activity. The feds are very much into deplatforming people for legal activity, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
rumanator 6y ago
> At least you'd have due process and couldn't be deplatformed for legal activity. Now you have neither. I don't understand your train of thought. I mean, you are arguing for a monopoly controlling a centralized service just because one of the many freely available payment platforms you personally choosed may have terms of service you might break? How is that a solution? It seems you are not arguing for a solution to the problem you framed. You're instead confusing wishful thinking with a solution to the problem. I mean, your suggestions don't even qualify as unintended consequences: they are only unrealistic and absurd expectations from a reform that has absolutely no relation to the problem.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

Technically, any occurring "federally illegal" activity is just not successfully policed criminal activity. (States can't actually make something legal the federal government says is not legal. They can just decline to use their own resources to police it.) Generally speaking, most people would consider "not usable in crime" to be a feature rather than a bug. ;)

sneak 6y ago
I don’t think there is as quite widespread consensus that all federal crimes are legitimately crime as you seem to think. Marijuana sales, for example, seem extremely popular. Just because there’s a law in place at some remote level of jurisdiction doesn’t mean it’s just, or has popular support.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Widespread consensus doesn't determine what is and isn't a crime. The law does. Until the federal law changes, marijuana sales are a federal crime. Technically speaking, no state can actually "legalize" it.
  - sneak 6y ago
    You’re absolutely right, of course. Widespread consensus heavily influences prosecutorial discretion though, which determines in practice what is or isn’t permitted by society. The law is not a computer program, and it is applied entirely arbitrarily.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > I don’t think there is as quite widespread consensus that all federal crimes are legitimately crime as you seem to think. Your comment makes no sense at all. For something to be a crime it has to be explicitly defined in law. Consensus has zero to do with it. Either there is a law, or there isn't. The whole point of rule of law is that you don't get to pick and choose which law applies to you in a given day of the week.
  - sneak 6y ago
    There are many marijuana shops in the United States, and many millions of customers of those shops who disagree with you. Also, Prohibition. The law is not some inviolate thing in a society. Many millions will happily ignore unjust laws if they feel they shouldn’t be laws. More alcohol was consumed during Prohibition in the US than before it was banned.
  - krageon 6y ago
    > The whole point of rule of law is that you don't get to pick and choose which law applies to you in a given day of the week. If the law is not enforced, then it does not exist. The only real law is the one that you see day-to-day. So shooting black people is fine (in the US), and you can buy weed in shops (in a few places).

orangecat 6y ago

At least you'd have due process and couldn't be deplatformed for legal activity. The feds are very much into deplatforming people for legal activity, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point

rumanator 6y ago

> At least you'd have due process and couldn't be deplatformed for legal activity. Now you have neither. I don't understand your train of thought. I mean, you are arguing for a monopoly controlling a centralized service just because one of the many freely available payment platforms you personally choosed may have terms of service you might break? How is that a solution? It seems you are not arguing for a solution to the problem you framed. You're instead confusing wishful thinking with a solution to the problem. I mean, your suggestions don't even qualify as unintended consequences: they are only unrealistic and absurd expectations from a reform that has absolutely no relation to the problem.