5 ms·

>Total government control has problems because of potential abuses, by politicians. Now that's an understatement. When in doubt, err on the side of limited go

• Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago
  That's my point, its a trade off. Who decides what 'limited' means? The answer is the that it depends who already has the most power. In China, you can be certain any new e-currency of any form will be completely controlled and monitored by the central government. But in western democracies, there is at least a chance that a negotiated balance between oversight and control needed to prevent crime, and privacy and autonomy for citizens. But there has to be that balance. A completely unpolicable currency/financial system is just as bad (but in different ways) as a completely policed one.
  • psychlops 5y ago
    Excellent points. I'd suggest that even if the financial records are completely untraceable that policing would still be possible. Of course, it wouldn't be as easy as full transparency. Perhaps I'm in a stage of paranoia when I think that all democracies are on a slow inevitable slide toward a China-like fully monitored economic system. Either with or without cryptos.
• falcolas 5y ago
  In the US, we have a history of what happens when citizens were wronged and there are no laws or enforcement of laws to help them: Vigilantism. And lemme say right off the bat, it's a pretty bad system. Look up "3-7-77" sometime. I, personally, would prefer minor political abuse instead of citizen enforcement of "rights" in the absence of laws or enforcement of those laws. Because the latter quickly gives lie to the "governments have a monopoly on force" catechism.