6 ms·

So the Russian and Iranian people who are not at fault for their governments misgivings are supposed to be shut out of the global financial system too? Thank S

by corv 4y ago

So the Russian and Iranian people who are not at fault for their governments misgivings are supposed to be shut out of the global financial system too? Thank Satoshi for true net neutrality.

arcticbull 4y ago
> So the Russian and Iranian people who are not at fault for their governments misgivings are supposed to be shut out of the global financial system too? If it helps exert pressure then financial sanctions are strictly better than kinetic war. The ability to end around those sanctions can lead to significantly more death and suffering - both there and potentially elsewhere. It's not about fairness it's about minimizing harm. If you disagree, vote. > Thank Satoshi for true net neutrality. No thanks man. Seems like an interesting cult y'all have there. [edit] Nobody has the right to trade. If you want to not conform to social norms and pose a risk, fine - but you don't have a fundamental right to exchange with foreign powers whom you detest. If you want to go down that path you better be prepared to be self-sufficient.
- corv 4y ago
  Cryptocurrency proponents have taken on an almost religious stance, I'll give you that. Then again fanatical users speaks to good product design somewhere
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    > Then again fanatical users speaks to good product design somewhere Or to a conflict of interest. Unlike consumer products, crypto usually ends up being worth more if more people are using it. Most crypto proponents hold some crypto and have a financial incentive to get more people into it.
    - corv 4y ago
      The same is true of the telephone, smartphones, the internet, etc. Metcalfe's law applies here as the utility of the network rises with the number of participants.
      - Jensson 4y ago
        No the same isn't true, I can't sell my telephone for more just because there are more other people with phones.
horsawlarway 4y ago
> So the Russian and Iranian people who are not at fault for their governments misgivings are supposed to be shut out of the global financial system too? Speaking objectively here: obviously yes. There is no government on earth that does not function without at least tacit consent of those governed. That consent may be obtained in all sorts of manners (many coercive or brutal) but fundamentally that matters very little from the perspective of an external nation. The entire point of cutting a nation out of the financial system is to generate internal pain among the population that removes consent for their government that is currently committing atrocities. If they want back in... the options are clear and simple: Choose a new government (through any of several means - up to and including rebellion or civil war). Stop the actions of your current government.
- europeanguy 4y ago
  > There is no government on earth that does not function without at least tacit consent of those governed. One thing I've noticed visiting Russia (multiple times) is how politically indifferent the average Russian is. (Or more precisely the average big city Russian). There's this idea everywhere that, you know politics is really complicated and you don't really understand it, so let the people in charge make decisions. So yes, Russian people have exactly the government they want.
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  Are europeans responsible for the deaths and slavery in libya? And americans are responsible for the deaths in the middle east? When do we cut those populations out?
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    When there's a global structure that has decided that those countries are not worth doing business with over the actions of their government. That's the whole point... You seem to be implying a value judgement I'm not making. I'm not making some random condemnation of Russia/Iran/Whoever, or extolling the virtues of western countries - I'm telling you the point of sanctioning those countries is that it's a path towards adjusting behavior by removing consent of those governed. If the Russian/Iranian/Whoever people are happy, content, well-fed, and have easy access to luxury items... what the hell is their incentive to change how their government is acting on the international stage? The sanctions serve to show those people providing consent that the rest of the group of nations they are interacting with are not happy. It's a feedback mechanism that is not: "hey - we're going to kill you now". Which Western nations are using 1) because it's less expensive in terms of both capital and bodies. 2) because it's arguably more humane. 3) Because nuclear weapons have made countries averse to full war. There's no value judgement about whether the sanctions are good or bad, or some prescriptive judgement that the west is better. It's just the clear intent of the sanctions is to make life harder for the citizenry without having to kill them. Whether the countries making the sanctions are moral or not (in my opinion, your opinion, or that of anyone else) has fuck all to do with the functional manner in which they are being used. Sanctions are a tool, whether that tool is being used justly has zero relation to how the tool itself functions.
vkou 4y ago
> So the Russian and Iranian people who are not at fault for their governments misgivings are supposed to be shut out of the global financial system too? ... Yes. Just like how the former are currently being conscripted to fight their relatives in a stupid war, started by their government. Life isn't fair, and people generally suffer when they allow bad governance to ruin their country. Ultimately, any government, even a repressive one can only function when the people it governs believe it to be legitimate. I hear that this sort of thing is being protested in Iran[1] these days. [1] The thing they are protesting has little to do with the cause of the sanctions, though, but that's another story.

by corv 4y ago

So the Russian and Iranian people who are not at fault for their governments misgivings are supposed to be shut out of the global financial system too? Thank Satoshi for true net neutrality.

arcticbull 4y ago

> So the Russian and Iranian people who are not at fault for their governments misgivings are supposed to be shut out of the global financial system too? If it helps exert pressure then financial sanctions are strictly better than kinetic war. The ability to end around those sanctions can lead to significantly more death and suffering - both there and potentially elsewhere. It's not about fairness it's about minimizing harm. If you disagree, vote. > Thank Satoshi for true net neutrality. No thanks man. Seems like an interesting cult y'all have there. [edit] Nobody has the right to trade. If you want to not conform to social norms and pose a risk, fine - but you don't have a fundamental right to exchange with foreign powers whom you detest. If you want to go down that path you better be prepared to be self-sufficient.

corv 4y ago
Cryptocurrency proponents have taken on an almost religious stance, I'll give you that. Then again fanatical users speaks to good product design somewhere
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  > Then again fanatical users speaks to good product design somewhere Or to a conflict of interest. Unlike consumer products, crypto usually ends up being worth more if more people are using it. Most crypto proponents hold some crypto and have a financial incentive to get more people into it.
  - corv 4y ago
    The same is true of the telephone, smartphones, the internet, etc. Metcalfe's law applies here as the utility of the network rises with the number of participants.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      No the same isn't true, I can't sell my telephone for more just because there are more other people with phones.

horsawlarway 4y ago

> So the Russian and Iranian people who are not at fault for their governments misgivings are supposed to be shut out of the global financial system too? Speaking objectively here: obviously yes. There is no government on earth that does not function without at least tacit consent of those governed. That consent may be obtained in all sorts of manners (many coercive or brutal) but fundamentally that matters very little from the perspective of an external nation. The entire point of cutting a nation out of the financial system is to generate internal pain among the population that removes consent for their government that is currently committing atrocities. If they want back in... the options are clear and simple: Choose a new government (through any of several means - up to and including rebellion or civil war). Stop the actions of your current government.

europeanguy 4y ago
> There is no government on earth that does not function without at least tacit consent of those governed. One thing I've noticed visiting Russia (multiple times) is how politically indifferent the average Russian is. (Or more precisely the average big city Russian). There's this idea everywhere that, you know politics is really complicated and you don't really understand it, so let the people in charge make decisions. So yes, Russian people have exactly the government they want.
mardifoufs 4y ago
Are europeans responsible for the deaths and slavery in libya? And americans are responsible for the deaths in the middle east? When do we cut those populations out?
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  When there's a global structure that has decided that those countries are not worth doing business with over the actions of their government. That's the whole point... You seem to be implying a value judgement I'm not making. I'm not making some random condemnation of Russia/Iran/Whoever, or extolling the virtues of western countries - I'm telling you the point of sanctioning those countries is that it's a path towards adjusting behavior by removing consent of those governed. If the Russian/Iranian/Whoever people are happy, content, well-fed, and have easy access to luxury items... what the hell is their incentive to change how their government is acting on the international stage? The sanctions serve to show those people providing consent that the rest of the group of nations they are interacting with are not happy. It's a feedback mechanism that is not: "hey - we're going to kill you now". Which Western nations are using 1) because it's less expensive in terms of both capital and bodies. 2) because it's arguably more humane. 3) Because nuclear weapons have made countries averse to full war. There's no value judgement about whether the sanctions are good or bad, or some prescriptive judgement that the west is better. It's just the clear intent of the sanctions is to make life harder for the citizenry without having to kill them. Whether the countries making the sanctions are moral or not (in my opinion, your opinion, or that of anyone else) has fuck all to do with the functional manner in which they are being used. Sanctions are a tool, whether that tool is being used justly has zero relation to how the tool itself functions.

vkou 4y ago

> So the Russian and Iranian people who are not at fault for their governments misgivings are supposed to be shut out of the global financial system too? ... Yes. Just like how the former are currently being conscripted to fight their relatives in a stupid war, started by their government. Life isn't fair, and people generally suffer when they allow bad governance to ruin their country. Ultimately, any government, even a repressive one can only function when the people it governs believe it to be legitimate. I hear that this sort of thing is being protested in Iran[1] these days. [1] The thing they are protesting has little to do with the cause of the sanctions, though, but that's another story.