5 ms·

This comparison would imply that securities laws are unjust because financiers are regularly targeted by authoritarian regimes. Which is ludicrous. They aren't

This comparison would imply that securities laws are unjust because financiers are regularly targeted by authoritarian regimes. Which is ludicrous. They aren't the underdogs here. They _are_ the powerful parties who need to be kept in check for democracy to function. A journalist publishing despite censorship is in no way comparable to wealthy promoters distributing unregulated securities. I think what you were going for may have been that distributing these securities is in some way freedom of speech, which is also just incorrect, or correct in some way so limited as to be irrelevant. If it is freedom of speech, your freedom to distribute securities stops at scamming your neighbor's nose. But the burden of proof here is on your security _not_ being a scam, and that is because unregulated securities markets readily devolve into scam after scam.

paisawalla 5y ago
The law isn't optional when it restrains things I don't like.
BurningFrog 5y ago
If laws forbid what you want to do, you're clearly, by definition, not in power.
- throwaway2048 5y ago
  The point of a nation of laws is to restrain the powerful, the powerful don't need laws to do what they want done, and the law is the only safe redress the abused have against them. Which is why unpunished abuses of the law by elites in society is so damaging in the long run, it erodes the very foundation of what it means to be a just society.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    By that definition, it's hard to understand why the powerful don't just use their power to stop the legislation holding them back. I think in reality there are many different kinds of power, and talking about power as if it's one simple fungible thing leads to naive and wrong conclusions.
    - maxbond 5y ago
      I agree, the thing is, the person who introduced the idea into this conversation that power was a boolean quantity and that it meant you either could do anything or were limited in some way - was you. I don't mean this as a personal attack or anything, it's just the facts; we weren't talking in those terms until you introduced them. You wouldn't need to disagree with this point if you hadn't brought it up yourself. Powerful people lobby against legislation constantly with mixed success. They're able to hold a lot of influence, but not able to hold total influence. It is difficult to understand, it's a complex system composed of many fully autonomous human beings. But we do ourselves a disservice when we cast it in such stark terms, wouldn't you say?
      - BurningFrog 5y ago
        Sure. I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny. Such is life on the forums sometimes.
        maxbond 5y ago
        > I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny. So you're wrong, but it isn't your fault, because you didn't even believe what you said, and you only said it because you wanted to respond to my argument, which you didn't think was worth taking seriously? I'd encourage you to hold yourself and your public statements to a higher standard than that. If my arguments aren't worth responding to - don't. If you don't believe something - don't say it. That isn't just "how things go," that's a series of decisions you made. Putting that on me shouldn't be something you accept from yourself.
        BurningFrog 5y ago
        "So what you're saying is..." arguments are typically fantasies about the opponents flawed inner thoughts, and not worth responding to.
- maxbond 5y ago
  So if I were the President, and I attempted to appoint an unqualified judge and was denied by Congress, you would argue that I don't hold power? Power is not a binary quantity, and there isn't just one type of power.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Yes. A power president would be able to put in unqualified judges. Considering there was recently a president putting in unqualified judges, while the prior president couldn't put in any judges, that is a difference in their power
    - maxbond 5y ago
      So, hucksters cannot be regulated because they don't hold absolute power? Indeed, we can't even talk about power differentials unless there is absolute power? That would seem to contradict your last statement, so I'm just not sure what you are asserting here.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    In a democratic society, the power of the executive is defined by law. The President is a powerful individual, but he is not a King. By law, appointments of certain positions require explicit consent of congress. The ability of regressive partisan elements to break government is a part of the design of the government. I personally find it repugnant and stupid. I also think that the short sighted nature of wielding this power in such a trivial and hamfisted way will ultimately backfire and result in constitutional changes down the road.
    - paisawalla 5y ago
      > The ability of regressive partisan elements to break government is a part of the design of the government. I personally find it repugnant and stupid. It's amazing the way you guys (small-d democrats) are always dressing up what is nakedly the statement that "everything I like and want is good and proceeds in a way I'll call democracy (because I say it's good for the people), but whatever I dislike is authoritarian (even if the people want it.)" It may surprise you to learn that, historically, this is exactly how authoritarianism views itself. Even Saddam Hussein conducted polls of his popularity so he could pretend his sovereignty arose from the people. The Vichy government was legal, popular, and internationally recognized. What the law says on paper is a different thing than what is practiced, and conveniently appealing to what the paper says is a time-honored tactic of eliding inconvenient realities. Democracy, c. 2020s: "The people must be allowed to choose, but only if what they choose is good for them, as decided by me."

paisawalla 5y ago

The law isn't optional when it restrains things I don't like.

BurningFrog 5y ago

If laws forbid what you want to do, you're clearly, by definition, not in power.

throwaway2048 5y ago
The point of a nation of laws is to restrain the powerful, the powerful don't need laws to do what they want done, and the law is the only safe redress the abused have against them. Which is why unpunished abuses of the law by elites in society is so damaging in the long run, it erodes the very foundation of what it means to be a just society.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  By that definition, it's hard to understand why the powerful don't just use their power to stop the legislation holding them back. I think in reality there are many different kinds of power, and talking about power as if it's one simple fungible thing leads to naive and wrong conclusions.
  - maxbond 5y ago
    I agree, the thing is, the person who introduced the idea into this conversation that power was a boolean quantity and that it meant you either could do anything or were limited in some way - was you. I don't mean this as a personal attack or anything, it's just the facts; we weren't talking in those terms until you introduced them. You wouldn't need to disagree with this point if you hadn't brought it up yourself. Powerful people lobby against legislation constantly with mixed success. They're able to hold a lot of influence, but not able to hold total influence. It is difficult to understand, it's a complex system composed of many fully autonomous human beings. But we do ourselves a disservice when we cast it in such stark terms, wouldn't you say?
    - BurningFrog 5y ago
      Sure. I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny. Such is life on the forums sometimes.
      - maxbond 5y ago
        > I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny. So you're wrong, but it isn't your fault, because you didn't even believe what you said, and you only said it because you wanted to respond to my argument, which you didn't think was worth taking seriously? I'd encourage you to hold yourself and your public statements to a higher standard than that. If my arguments aren't worth responding to - don't. If you don't believe something - don't say it. That isn't just "how things go," that's a series of decisions you made. Putting that on me shouldn't be something you accept from yourself.
        BurningFrog 5y ago
        "So what you're saying is..." arguments are typically fantasies about the opponents flawed inner thoughts, and not worth responding to.
maxbond 5y ago
So if I were the President, and I attempted to appoint an unqualified judge and was denied by Congress, you would argue that I don't hold power? Power is not a binary quantity, and there isn't just one type of power.
- 8note 5y ago
  Yes. A power president would be able to put in unqualified judges. Considering there was recently a president putting in unqualified judges, while the prior president couldn't put in any judges, that is a difference in their power
  - maxbond 5y ago
    So, hucksters cannot be regulated because they don't hold absolute power? Indeed, we can't even talk about power differentials unless there is absolute power? That would seem to contradict your last statement, so I'm just not sure what you are asserting here.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  In a democratic society, the power of the executive is defined by law. The President is a powerful individual, but he is not a King. By law, appointments of certain positions require explicit consent of congress. The ability of regressive partisan elements to break government is a part of the design of the government. I personally find it repugnant and stupid. I also think that the short sighted nature of wielding this power in such a trivial and hamfisted way will ultimately backfire and result in constitutional changes down the road.
  - paisawalla 5y ago
    > The ability of regressive partisan elements to break government is a part of the design of the government. I personally find it repugnant and stupid. It's amazing the way you guys (small-d democrats) are always dressing up what is nakedly the statement that "everything I like and want is good and proceeds in a way I'll call democracy (because I say it's good for the people), but whatever I dislike is authoritarian (even if the people want it.)" It may surprise you to learn that, historically, this is exactly how authoritarianism views itself. Even Saddam Hussein conducted polls of his popularity so he could pretend his sovereignty arose from the people. The Vichy government was legal, popular, and internationally recognized. What the law says on paper is a different thing than what is practiced, and conveniently appealing to what the paper says is a time-honored tactic of eliding inconvenient realities. Democracy, c. 2020s: "The people must be allowed to choose, but only if what they choose is good for them, as decided by me."