3 ms·

Are you being obtuse deliberately? First, no, most people didn't choose borders and customs. The very people we are talking about, the people that send money h

Are you being obtuse deliberately? First, no, most people didn't choose borders and customs. The very people we are talking about, the people that send money home, and their advocates, often ignore borders deliberately. I don't recall choosing any of that stuff. I don't think there's a person alive today that did. But that aside, we aren't talking about someone checking your luggage for fruit seeds on the way in. You know damn well what mess I'm referring to, because you've spent however long in this thread defending it like none of the problems people point out exist.

lottin 5y ago
If none of the people alive today wants borders, how do you explain the existence of borders? What is your theory? And no, I don't know what 'mess' you are referring to. You seem to talk quite cryptically, to be honest.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Alright, I'll draw it in crayons: having to pay 25% of your income to send part of your income home to family. That mess. The one I mentioned already that you handwaived over. I never said nobody wants borders, I said nobody chose borders. We were all born into this. You understand the distinction between choosing something and learning to live with it? Of course that's a tangent on your original statement, your assertion that we choose capital controls, that you have not addressed. If our society left capital control to a democratic process they wouldn't exist, and the proof of that is that people avoid them at every opportunity, hence bitcoin. Shit, "capital controls" is a distraction from the issue we were trying to address, which is the ridiculous state of the remittances industry as an example of the state of the consumer financial services industry that bitcoin serves as an alternative to that you keep defending but fail to actually construct an argument in defense of. "We chose them for a reason" "what reason?" "oh you don't like borders?" It's senseless. People choose bitcoin. Actual individuals choose it. Nobody holds a gun to their head and makes them use it. The same cannot always be said of the alternative. Is people choosing it a good enough reason for you to accept that it is good and should exist? Seems to be a good enough reason for the alternatives to exist, even if it isn't true. I don't talk cryptically, I stay on point. I don't derail, I don't create tangents. You do, with every single reply. Not everyone gets lost in the noise.
  - lottin 5y ago
    Alright, now that you have laid out your argument we can see how silly it is. The fact that some people don't like a regulation, or that some people choose to contravene it, doesn't mean that such regulation is illegitimate. A regulation is legitimate as long as it is put in place by a legitimate (i.e. democratic) government. And since a democratic government represents the will of the people, it's clear that we the people have indeed put the regulation in place. Nobody says you have to agree with it, but not agreeing with a regulation is not a reason to infringe it. That's just childish.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      So "the government is legitimate, problem solved." All good then, I simply do not understand why there are social problems and resistance movements worldwide, it is childish! The governments are legitimate! If these governments actually represented the will of the people, the people would not be using bitcoin to send money home. Or smoking weed for that matter. There is a giant blind spot in your worldview IMO. There's a whole host of other problems with your point, such as who decides whether a government is legitimate (you? Some "democratic committee?"), whether people in China or KSA can rightly disobey laws because they're not democratic, whether you have the right to force me to be one of your people, and probably more I didn't catch, I'll let you bring them up if you want to talk about them.
      - lottin 5y ago
        > If these governments actually represented the will of the people, the people would not be using bitcoin to send money home. Or smoking weed for that matter. This is not how it works. If a significant number of people oppose a certain regulation, a public debate will ensue, and sometimes the general mindset with regards to the issue will shift and then the regulation will change accordingly. This is how democracy works. If you think that capital controls should not exist, feel free to make a case against such controls, but you will have to do a little better than "oh, look, it's a mess, let's get rid of capital controls". Nobody is going to take you seriously unless you present a convincing argument, and coming up with a convincing argument would require, for a start, an understanding of the reasons behind current regulations with regards to capital controls.

lottin 5y ago

If none of the people alive today wants borders, how do you explain the existence of borders? What is your theory? And no, I don't know what 'mess' you are referring to. You seem to talk quite cryptically, to be honest.

betwixthewires 5y ago
Alright, I'll draw it in crayons: having to pay 25% of your income to send part of your income home to family. That mess. The one I mentioned already that you handwaived over. I never said nobody wants borders, I said nobody chose borders. We were all born into this. You understand the distinction between choosing something and learning to live with it? Of course that's a tangent on your original statement, your assertion that we choose capital controls, that you have not addressed. If our society left capital control to a democratic process they wouldn't exist, and the proof of that is that people avoid them at every opportunity, hence bitcoin. Shit, "capital controls" is a distraction from the issue we were trying to address, which is the ridiculous state of the remittances industry as an example of the state of the consumer financial services industry that bitcoin serves as an alternative to that you keep defending but fail to actually construct an argument in defense of. "We chose them for a reason" "what reason?" "oh you don't like borders?" It's senseless. People choose bitcoin. Actual individuals choose it. Nobody holds a gun to their head and makes them use it. The same cannot always be said of the alternative. Is people choosing it a good enough reason for you to accept that it is good and should exist? Seems to be a good enough reason for the alternatives to exist, even if it isn't true. I don't talk cryptically, I stay on point. I don't derail, I don't create tangents. You do, with every single reply. Not everyone gets lost in the noise.
- lottin 5y ago
  Alright, now that you have laid out your argument we can see how silly it is. The fact that some people don't like a regulation, or that some people choose to contravene it, doesn't mean that such regulation is illegitimate. A regulation is legitimate as long as it is put in place by a legitimate (i.e. democratic) government. And since a democratic government represents the will of the people, it's clear that we the people have indeed put the regulation in place. Nobody says you have to agree with it, but not agreeing with a regulation is not a reason to infringe it. That's just childish.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    So "the government is legitimate, problem solved." All good then, I simply do not understand why there are social problems and resistance movements worldwide, it is childish! The governments are legitimate! If these governments actually represented the will of the people, the people would not be using bitcoin to send money home. Or smoking weed for that matter. There is a giant blind spot in your worldview IMO. There's a whole host of other problems with your point, such as who decides whether a government is legitimate (you? Some "democratic committee?"), whether people in China or KSA can rightly disobey laws because they're not democratic, whether you have the right to force me to be one of your people, and probably more I didn't catch, I'll let you bring them up if you want to talk about them.
    - lottin 5y ago
      > If these governments actually represented the will of the people, the people would not be using bitcoin to send money home. Or smoking weed for that matter. This is not how it works. If a significant number of people oppose a certain regulation, a public debate will ensue, and sometimes the general mindset with regards to the issue will shift and then the regulation will change accordingly. This is how democracy works. If you think that capital controls should not exist, feel free to make a case against such controls, but you will have to do a little better than "oh, look, it's a mess, let's get rid of capital controls". Nobody is going to take you seriously unless you present a convincing argument, and coming up with a convincing argument would require, for a start, an understanding of the reasons behind current regulations with regards to capital controls.