3 ms·

I think the framing of this article is super biased. It implies that there is a right to DeFi and that this law would take away that right (it also seems to imp

I think the framing of this article is super biased. It implies that there is a right to DeFi and that this law would take away that right (it also seems to imply it would do that by accident since legislators couldn't possibly do this on purpose.) There isn't a right to undermine the nation state and maybe, just maybe, the government is for once waking up and doing a useful thing by nipping this in the bud before it becomes dangerous?

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Crypto proponents, painting with a broad brush, believe that code should be above nation state laws and regulations.
- malermeister 5y ago
  ... and then get outraged at anyone wanting to avoid that dystopia.
int_19h 5y ago
There's a natural right to undermine the nation state - or any other actor - when said actor itself undermines natural rights. Whether you believe that freely exchanging goods and services is a natural right or not is another question.
- krapp 5y ago
  >There's a natural right to undermine the nation state - or any other actor - when said actor itself undermines natural rights. Whether you believe that freely exchanging goods and services is a natural right or not is another question. This resolves to "there is a right to undermine anyone or anything for undermining your beliefs," because what is and isn't considered a "natural right" is entirely subjective.
  - malermeister 5y ago
    One could even say there is no such thing as "natural rights". If it's not codified in law, it's not a right, it's a feeling.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Rights are social constructs, of course. But we rely on such social constructs all the time. Any ethical system, when you unravel it down to the very bottom, boils down to some axioms that are taken for granted - you can't construct ethics out of nothing. OPs implicit assertion that undermining nation-states is somehow bad does not have a foundation that is any more stable.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Crypto proponents, painting with a broad brush, believe that code should be above nation state laws and regulations.

malermeister 5y ago
... and then get outraged at anyone wanting to avoid that dystopia.

int_19h 5y ago

There's a natural right to undermine the nation state - or any other actor - when said actor itself undermines natural rights. Whether you believe that freely exchanging goods and services is a natural right or not is another question.

krapp 5y ago
>There's a natural right to undermine the nation state - or any other actor - when said actor itself undermines natural rights. Whether you believe that freely exchanging goods and services is a natural right or not is another question. This resolves to "there is a right to undermine anyone or anything for undermining your beliefs," because what is and isn't considered a "natural right" is entirely subjective.
- malermeister 5y ago
  One could even say there is no such thing as "natural rights". If it's not codified in law, it's not a right, it's a feeling.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Rights are social constructs, of course. But we rely on such social constructs all the time. Any ethical system, when you unravel it down to the very bottom, boils down to some axioms that are taken for granted - you can't construct ethics out of nothing. OPs implicit assertion that undermining nation-states is somehow bad does not have a foundation that is any more stable.