4 ms·

i understand why we might want to dissuade speculative investments, byt why is it the state's role to prevent citizens from speculating?

thethimble 4y ago
It’s not a perfect analogy but it’s the same reason we have laws that require seatbelts. In theory this impinges on the liberty of adults, but in practice the it obviously saves lives. When people commit harm to themselves out of ignorance, I think it’s reasonable for a government to step in. Note that I think it’s reasonable to fundamentally disagree from a libertarian standpoint but I don’t see many reasonable people arguing against seatbelt laws.
- dropnerd 4y ago
  even from a utilitarian stance, the tradeoff for making the system "safer" is that investors miss opportunities that they see but can't take. something is wrong when you can only buy virgin galactic, not spacex, because of burdensome regulations. the gap between the haves and have nots widen as you must be an accredited investor to buy the biggest winners this decade. something is wrong when you can buy penny stocks, but experimental defi products exclude the us market because of regulatory concerns. the latter is much more transparent than the former.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > It’s not a perfect analogy but it’s the same reason we have laws that require seatbelts. In theory this impinges on the liberty of adults, but in practice the it obviously saves lives. At the risk of going off-topic, I think that seatbelts isn't a good analogy because I don't think we require seat belts to protect people from themselves. It is to protect other people. When you are unbelted, it is far more difficult to maintain control of your vehicle when things start to get even a little bit exciting. You can't worry much about car control when you're getting tossed out of your seat. I would say helmet laws are a closer analogy, because AFAICT that is almost entirely about protecting people from themselves.

thethimble 4y ago

It’s not a perfect analogy but it’s the same reason we have laws that require seatbelts. In theory this impinges on the liberty of adults, but in practice the it obviously saves lives. When people commit harm to themselves out of ignorance, I think it’s reasonable for a government to step in. Note that I think it’s reasonable to fundamentally disagree from a libertarian standpoint but I don’t see many reasonable people arguing against seatbelt laws.

dropnerd 4y ago
even from a utilitarian stance, the tradeoff for making the system "safer" is that investors miss opportunities that they see but can't take. something is wrong when you can only buy virgin galactic, not spacex, because of burdensome regulations. the gap between the haves and have nots widen as you must be an accredited investor to buy the biggest winners this decade. something is wrong when you can buy penny stocks, but experimental defi products exclude the us market because of regulatory concerns. the latter is much more transparent than the former.
rootusrootus 4y ago
> It’s not a perfect analogy but it’s the same reason we have laws that require seatbelts. In theory this impinges on the liberty of adults, but in practice the it obviously saves lives. At the risk of going off-topic, I think that seatbelts isn't a good analogy because I don't think we require seat belts to protect people from themselves. It is to protect other people. When you are unbelted, it is far more difficult to maintain control of your vehicle when things start to get even a little bit exciting. You can't worry much about car control when you're getting tossed out of your seat. I would say helmet laws are a closer analogy, because AFAICT that is almost entirely about protecting people from themselves.