5 ms·

> In Canada, we just went through a 10-day period where, in an afternoon, the government casually made it retroactively illegal to have supported a peaceful cau

by dwater 5y ago

> In Canada, we just went through a 10-day period where, in an afternoon, the government casually made it retroactively illegal to have supported a peaceful cause -- and began locking up peaceful, law-abiding citizens' bank accounts. My understanding is that those citizens were using their money to support people who were intentionally blocking one of the main functions of a national government (regulating international trade). > In Russia, citizens have been instantly locked out of international financial transactions, and non-local currencies have become unavailable. It is likely that further, dramatic interventions in ingress/egress of wealth are forthcoming. Russians have no right to perform transactions using US Dollars, and as an American citizen I have no right to perform transactions in Rubles. Our governments regulate that (again, international trade). > In China, random decisions regarding the legality of Cryptocurrencies are regularly enacted. Huge businesses doing legal, ethical mining are one day accepted, and the next -- made illegal. In China, many government decisions are like that. Like when they overnight decided to restrict vehicle access to Beijing to try to reduce pollution leading up to the 2008 Olympics. I doubt actions like these come as a surprise to Chinese citizens. And, again, it's largely related to international trade. In our modern world of nation states, the individual citizen does not have unfettered access to all the world markets. Our governments place restrictions on trade, and they will do the same with cryptocurrency. You can try to evade it, either through bitcoin or gold bullion, but it is not your right.

bmmayer1 5y ago
Whether a government can do something is a different question of whether a government ought to do something...in any event you seem to be proving OP's point, which is that the ability of a government to do something is concerning in and of itself, regardless of whether one might feel an action is justified.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Lets just call the debate in terms of their actual terms. Is it a good, or bad, thing that we removed Russia from our collective financial systems? That's really all there is to it. If its a good thing, you need to be happy with the power to do so (and you must keep and protect the power during times of peace). If its a bad thing, then I'm curious why anyone would take Russia's side on this particular conflict. Its clear to me that the Russian economy is already getting pretty hampered due to these sanctions, so no one can really argue against their efficacy anymore.
  - pjkundert 5y ago
    So, the "collective punishment" of the civilian populace of an aggressor is what you're proposing as a good thing? This does nothing to harm the "oligarchs". They have plenty of wealth stashed in non-extradition jurisdictions.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      > This does nothing to harm the "oligarchs" As long as the Moscow Stock Market is closed due to these events, your suggestion is laughable. We're already seeing those oligarchs cave to pressure and start talking about peace. They're clearly hurting from this. We hit Russia where they hurt: their economy. Oligarchs, the literal business leaders of Russia, care about their money, flow of business, their stock exchange, etc. etc. Yes, its a shame that the Russian people are also getting hit over this. But not as much as the shame as the countless Ukrainian neighborhoods that literally don't exist anymore. I'm sure Russian troops don't want to "harm civilians" either, but their actions have consequences. And the counter-actions also have consequences. -------- The only way you change my mind over this, is if YOU explain what kind of deterrence works __better__. I know there were talks about actual military action (no fly zones, US troops, etc. etc.), but presumably direct military action is also off the table, as its a dramatic escalation upwards from simple financial sanctions. ---------- EDIT: Case in point, Russian Oligarch Vagit Alekperov has lost 60% of his networth in the past week. Are you seriously trying to tell me that doesn't hurt him?
      - landemva 5y ago
        ' explain what kind of deterrence works ' Biden withdrew the remaining US troops from Ukraine three weeks ago. That was not deterrence. That was a giant green light for Russia to walk in to Ukraine. https://www.trtworld.com/americas/us-withdraws-nearly-all-remaining-troops-from-ukraine-54676 https://www.trtworld.com/americas/us-withdraws-nearly-all-re...
pjkundert 5y ago
> My understanding is that those citizens were using their money to support people who were intentionally blocking one of the main functions of a national government (regulating international trade). Yes, peacefully. A large fraction of the hundreds of thousands who supported these truckers have, themselves, been blocked from employment, international travel, etc., because they refused an experimental medical treatment. Which, apparently, they felt strongly about. Strongly enough to demonstrate that blocking civilians from trade and employment is ... distressing. Are you proposing that only ineffective peaceful blockages should be allowed? Or, that only those whose politics and beliefs you agree with should be allowed to resist (even violently and destructively -- so long as you agree with them)? As for "it is not your right" as a citizen to access world markets. A government that prevents its citizenry from surviving by blocking access to viable money and trade should rightfully expect to be resisted -- to whatever level of intensity is required to protect its innocent citizenry. Wouldn't you agree?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > peacefully Blocking a bridge isn't violent. But it isn't peaceful protest either. Overseeing international trade routes is one of a government's core responsibilities. Deploying its monopoly on violence is justified. Peaceful protest (including striking) doesn't shut down critical infrastructure. If a government lets random hooligans repeatedly shut down large sections of the economy, it's an ineffective government. In the long run, ineffective governments get replaced by more effective (read: less democratic) ones. All that said, I do think the Canadian government went a bit far. Peacefully dispersing the protests would have been more than enough.
  - hungryforcodes 5y ago
    And yet people on HN are saying Russians should go into Moscow and do what it takes to shutdown the government. Hooligans when its not convenient, responsible citizens when it is.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
landemva 5y ago
' as an American citizen I have no right to perform transactions in Rubles. ' Says who? Specific citation please.

by dwater 5y ago

bmmayer1 5y ago

Whether a government can do something is a different question of whether a government ought to do something...in any event you seem to be proving OP's point, which is that the ability of a government to do something is concerning in and of itself, regardless of whether one might feel an action is justified.

dragontamer 5y ago
Lets just call the debate in terms of their actual terms. Is it a good, or bad, thing that we removed Russia from our collective financial systems? That's really all there is to it. If its a good thing, you need to be happy with the power to do so (and you must keep and protect the power during times of peace). If its a bad thing, then I'm curious why anyone would take Russia's side on this particular conflict. Its clear to me that the Russian economy is already getting pretty hampered due to these sanctions, so no one can really argue against their efficacy anymore.
- pjkundert 5y ago
  So, the "collective punishment" of the civilian populace of an aggressor is what you're proposing as a good thing? This does nothing to harm the "oligarchs". They have plenty of wealth stashed in non-extradition jurisdictions.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > This does nothing to harm the "oligarchs" As long as the Moscow Stock Market is closed due to these events, your suggestion is laughable. We're already seeing those oligarchs cave to pressure and start talking about peace. They're clearly hurting from this. We hit Russia where they hurt: their economy. Oligarchs, the literal business leaders of Russia, care about their money, flow of business, their stock exchange, etc. etc. Yes, its a shame that the Russian people are also getting hit over this. But not as much as the shame as the countless Ukrainian neighborhoods that literally don't exist anymore. I'm sure Russian troops don't want to "harm civilians" either, but their actions have consequences. And the counter-actions also have consequences. -------- The only way you change my mind over this, is if YOU explain what kind of deterrence works __better__. I know there were talks about actual military action (no fly zones, US troops, etc. etc.), but presumably direct military action is also off the table, as its a dramatic escalation upwards from simple financial sanctions. ---------- EDIT: Case in point, Russian Oligarch Vagit Alekperov has lost 60% of his networth in the past week. Are you seriously trying to tell me that doesn't hurt him?
    - landemva 5y ago
      ' explain what kind of deterrence works ' Biden withdrew the remaining US troops from Ukraine three weeks ago. That was not deterrence. That was a giant green light for Russia to walk in to Ukraine. https://www.trtworld.com/americas/us-withdraws-nearly-all-remaining-troops-from-ukraine-54676 https://www.trtworld.com/americas/us-withdraws-nearly-all-re...

pjkundert 5y ago

> My understanding is that those citizens were using their money to support people who were intentionally blocking one of the main functions of a national government (regulating international trade). Yes, peacefully. A large fraction of the hundreds of thousands who supported these truckers have, themselves, been blocked from employment, international travel, etc., because they refused an experimental medical treatment. Which, apparently, they felt strongly about. Strongly enough to demonstrate that blocking civilians from trade and employment is ... distressing. Are you proposing that only ineffective peaceful blockages should be allowed? Or, that only those whose politics and beliefs you agree with should be allowed to resist (even violently and destructively -- so long as you agree with them)? As for "it is not your right" as a citizen to access world markets. A government that prevents its citizenry from surviving by blocking access to viable money and trade should rightfully expect to be resisted -- to whatever level of intensity is required to protect its innocent citizenry. Wouldn't you agree?

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> peacefully Blocking a bridge isn't violent. But it isn't peaceful protest either. Overseeing international trade routes is one of a government's core responsibilities. Deploying its monopoly on violence is justified. Peaceful protest (including striking) doesn't shut down critical infrastructure. If a government lets random hooligans repeatedly shut down large sections of the economy, it's an ineffective government. In the long run, ineffective governments get replaced by more effective (read: less democratic) ones. All that said, I do think the Canadian government went a bit far. Peacefully dispersing the protests would have been more than enough.
- hungryforcodes 5y ago
  And yet people on HN are saying Russians should go into Moscow and do what it takes to shutdown the government. Hooligans when its not convenient, responsible citizens when it is.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago

landemva 5y ago

' as an American citizen I have no right to perform transactions in Rubles. ' Says who? Specific citation please.