5 ms·

Yep, more or less! If I argue for equality based on some abstract principle and someone else argues women should not be allowed to drive alone because that's ag

by sershe 4y ago

Yep, more or less! If I argue for equality based on some abstract principle and someone else argues women should not be allowed to drive alone because that's against god's will, we have no common basis to argue. So it's "the ones I consider", more or less. Still, we could both agree that e.g. a law prosecuting a private practice of religion is tyrannical and tools to bypass it are good to have. What is your position? That tools primarily intended to break any law are inherently suspect and it's good to ban them?

ctvo 4y ago
> What is your position? That tools primarily intended to break any law are inherently suspect and it's good to ban them? I think a tool's primary use is important. And that's nuanced, and subjective. Let's take guns for example. Guns are regulated in most western countries, some more heavily than others. Gun advocates often cite needing them to hunt animals or to defend themselves from predatory animals in rural environments. Sometimes they also cite using them to defend themselves against other humans. Mostly though guns seem to be used for self harm and to shoot others. In a more tyrannical setting, guns could be used for revolution and to overthrow oppressors. I assume you're OK with things like banning assault rifles for civilian use in your country even though that use case is a possibility elsewhere in the world? When Tornado Cash's primary uses are speculation, tax evasion, and money laundering in a country like the US -- I don't disagree that it should be banned or heavily regulated even if in some specific setting it could possibly be used for other purposes. A lot of folks in the west very loudly cite Tornado Cash (and other things in the crypto space) as a means for oppressed peoples to bypass government control. I wonder if they're not similar to the people who want to own an AK-47 because they sometimes like to hunt ducks or want to protect themselves from home invasions.
- sershe 4y ago
  The primary purpose of an AR-15 in the US, comparing the number of guns in circulation and the number of crimes/suicides/self-defenses, is sitting idly forever in someone's gun safe, or being used on a shooting range. I happen to be on-board with gun possession by law-abiding citizens, with minimal licensing requirements (no more obtrusive than for driving for handguns, or driving a semi for a rifle). However that's not the point. " I don't disagree that it should be banned or heavily regulated even if in some specific setting it could possibly be used for other purposes." - but wouldn't that apply to everything? It is obvious that a typical govt would try to clamp down on things that are a threat to itself, be it guns on anonymous defi. The question is (1) how much do you trust the current government / an average government on Earth / support whatever the current laws / average laws are in the first place, (2) how much do you trust the government / laws to not deteriorate in future (e.g. abortion ban with financial punishment for violators, Canadian trucker style, how about that?), (3) is the government less or more likely to deteriorate when checks on it are removed?

by sershe 4y ago

ctvo 4y ago

> What is your position? That tools primarily intended to break any law are inherently suspect and it's good to ban them? I think a tool's primary use is important. And that's nuanced, and subjective. Let's take guns for example. Guns are regulated in most western countries, some more heavily than others. Gun advocates often cite needing them to hunt animals or to defend themselves from predatory animals in rural environments. Sometimes they also cite using them to defend themselves against other humans. Mostly though guns seem to be used for self harm and to shoot others. In a more tyrannical setting, guns could be used for revolution and to overthrow oppressors. I assume you're OK with things like banning assault rifles for civilian use in your country even though that use case is a possibility elsewhere in the world? When Tornado Cash's primary uses are speculation, tax evasion, and money laundering in a country like the US -- I don't disagree that it should be banned or heavily regulated even if in some specific setting it could possibly be used for other purposes. A lot of folks in the west very loudly cite Tornado Cash (and other things in the crypto space) as a means for oppressed peoples to bypass government control. I wonder if they're not similar to the people who want to own an AK-47 because they sometimes like to hunt ducks or want to protect themselves from home invasions.

sershe 4y ago
The primary purpose of an AR-15 in the US, comparing the number of guns in circulation and the number of crimes/suicides/self-defenses, is sitting idly forever in someone's gun safe, or being used on a shooting range. I happen to be on-board with gun possession by law-abiding citizens, with minimal licensing requirements (no more obtrusive than for driving for handguns, or driving a semi for a rifle). However that's not the point. " I don't disagree that it should be banned or heavily regulated even if in some specific setting it could possibly be used for other purposes." - but wouldn't that apply to everything? It is obvious that a typical govt would try to clamp down on things that are a threat to itself, be it guns on anonymous defi. The question is (1) how much do you trust the current government / an average government on Earth / support whatever the current laws / average laws are in the first place, (2) how much do you trust the government / laws to not deteriorate in future (e.g. abortion ban with financial punishment for violators, Canadian trucker style, how about that?), (3) is the government less or more likely to deteriorate when checks on it are removed?