4 ms·

BTC had always been a means of avoiding regulations, and that's fine imo, because let's be frank... US regulations are on par with the CCP in execution with stu

BTC had always been a means of avoiding regulations, and that's fine imo, because let's be frank... US regulations are on par with the CCP in execution with stupid rules like double taxation and mandated rules for foreign banks not in their jurisdiction. But they control the loud speakers and have much stronger global enforcement, ie they are the biggest gangsters around so they set the rules.

noduerme 4y ago
The double taxation thing really is a bitch. Not to mention, giving up one's US citizenship triggers the equivalent of an estate tax as if you died. Still, it's a democracy and some people voted for those things; it also doesn't explicitly force people to stop speaking their native language or abandon their religion, or throw people in prison for waving a sign in the street. So I keep my US passport and pay my taxes. The US is one of the few countries in the world where people do collectively have power to make drastic and enduring changes to the system without needing to start a cycle of violence to accomplish their aims.
- largepeepee 4y ago
  >where people do collectively have power to make drastic and enduring changes to the system without needing to start a cycle of violence to accomplish their aims. Tell that to me again after the financial system, immense legal corruption and healthcare has been fixed. These are all problems known for decades beyond some people's lifespans and consecutive presidents haven't been able to fix it...hell many go again their election promises with lame duck excuses. If I had to compare both shitty superpowers, China would be "can't change the party but you can change the policy", while the US would be "you can change the party, but not the policy" Both are dystopian in their own ways, difference being China is an obvert dystopia, while the US is covert one drugging their populace to numb discontent etc.
  - noduerme 4y ago
    I don't want to get into some kind of political debate that could be determined to be a "flame" thing - I'm on probation over here. But don't you think the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) was a pretty major stick in the eye of the insurance-industrial-complex? Sure, it's nothing remotely approaching the kind of social medicine available in France or New Zealand, but it was provably the result of large numbers of people voting for change against the prevailing moneyed structure that was in place. Policy doesn't necessarily swing 180º with every new administration; that's probably for the best. Isn't this an example of policy being shifted democratically? I hesitate to get into the pull-out from Afghanistan or the judicial decision to rescind Roe v Wade; those are both things I strongly, vociferously disagree with. But they're both examples of public pressure changing policy (for better or worse) through the application of democratic processes available to all citizens.
    - largepeepee 4y ago
      It always boils down to who are you comparing it too? Cheering those minuscule changes are akin to praising the CCP for beingat open to change with them ending there zero-covid policy. At the end of the day these policies are slow and usually ineffective - all of your examples included.
- johnyzee 4y ago
  > it also doesn't explicitly force people to stop speaking their native language or abandon their religion, or throw people in prison for waving a sign in the street I don't mean to get all edgy, and not to detract from your general point, but please don't forget that the U.S. supports (and has even installed) foreign regimes that do these (and worse) things - albeit to people in other countries.
  - noduerme 4y ago
    You're dead on right. There's no excuse for those travesties. The primary difference is that our voters wouldn't accept those kinds of abuses in our own country. Yes, too many voters are willing to turn a blind eye to exporting those policies, but at least those who are aware of them are both able to agitate against them and, occasionally, able to stop them. There is no fundamental difference between Guantanamo and Russian or Chinese camps set up to torture Muslims. We do, however, still have the right to investigate and to protest; I believe this has limited the scale to one concentration camp as opposed to dozens or hundreds. The same applies to our foreign policy. And there are times where it makes sense to back the less-immediately-dangerous of two dictators, or even the one not aligned with our adversaries. Even in those cases, there's been an almost ridiculously naive American will to try to get them to accept free and fair elections, such as in Iraq. I don't think there's any other empire in history that would allow, let alone sanction such a thing, with the exception of the British who were also primarily interested in divesting themselves from their imperial holdings. On the foreign stage, America does and has backed horrendous dictators and fascists. As does and has every other empire in history. There is, though, a certain underlying theory in American politics - both right and left - that is disgusted with the notion of engagement in foreign wars and doesn't have the will to occupy foreign territory. This is what you would hope for as a natural result of a functioning democracy where people had a short tolerance for the personal deprivations inflicted by a state bent on imperial expansion. No, it ain't Switzerland. I wish it were. But speaking with Syrian refugees and Lebanese and Tibetan dissidents and South Vietnamese and Cubans I've known in my life, I've kind of come to the conclusion that international relations are a jungle where most states are predators and most individuals are prey. America does at least give lip service to the notion that individuals shouldn't be preyed upon, and tries to export that meme.

noduerme 4y ago

The double taxation thing really is a bitch. Not to mention, giving up one's US citizenship triggers the equivalent of an estate tax as if you died. Still, it's a democracy and some people voted for those things; it also doesn't explicitly force people to stop speaking their native language or abandon their religion, or throw people in prison for waving a sign in the street. So I keep my US passport and pay my taxes. The US is one of the few countries in the world where people do collectively have power to make drastic and enduring changes to the system without needing to start a cycle of violence to accomplish their aims.

largepeepee 4y ago
>where people do collectively have power to make drastic and enduring changes to the system without needing to start a cycle of violence to accomplish their aims. Tell that to me again after the financial system, immense legal corruption and healthcare has been fixed. These are all problems known for decades beyond some people's lifespans and consecutive presidents haven't been able to fix it...hell many go again their election promises with lame duck excuses. If I had to compare both shitty superpowers, China would be "can't change the party but you can change the policy", while the US would be "you can change the party, but not the policy" Both are dystopian in their own ways, difference being China is an obvert dystopia, while the US is covert one drugging their populace to numb discontent etc.
- noduerme 4y ago
  I don't want to get into some kind of political debate that could be determined to be a "flame" thing - I'm on probation over here. But don't you think the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) was a pretty major stick in the eye of the insurance-industrial-complex? Sure, it's nothing remotely approaching the kind of social medicine available in France or New Zealand, but it was provably the result of large numbers of people voting for change against the prevailing moneyed structure that was in place. Policy doesn't necessarily swing 180º with every new administration; that's probably for the best. Isn't this an example of policy being shifted democratically? I hesitate to get into the pull-out from Afghanistan or the judicial decision to rescind Roe v Wade; those are both things I strongly, vociferously disagree with. But they're both examples of public pressure changing policy (for better or worse) through the application of democratic processes available to all citizens.
  - largepeepee 4y ago
    It always boils down to who are you comparing it too? Cheering those minuscule changes are akin to praising the CCP for beingat open to change with them ending there zero-covid policy. At the end of the day these policies are slow and usually ineffective - all of your examples included.
johnyzee 4y ago
> it also doesn't explicitly force people to stop speaking their native language or abandon their religion, or throw people in prison for waving a sign in the street I don't mean to get all edgy, and not to detract from your general point, but please don't forget that the U.S. supports (and has even installed) foreign regimes that do these (and worse) things - albeit to people in other countries.
- noduerme 4y ago
  You're dead on right. There's no excuse for those travesties. The primary difference is that our voters wouldn't accept those kinds of abuses in our own country. Yes, too many voters are willing to turn a blind eye to exporting those policies, but at least those who are aware of them are both able to agitate against them and, occasionally, able to stop them. There is no fundamental difference between Guantanamo and Russian or Chinese camps set up to torture Muslims. We do, however, still have the right to investigate and to protest; I believe this has limited the scale to one concentration camp as opposed to dozens or hundreds. The same applies to our foreign policy. And there are times where it makes sense to back the less-immediately-dangerous of two dictators, or even the one not aligned with our adversaries. Even in those cases, there's been an almost ridiculously naive American will to try to get them to accept free and fair elections, such as in Iraq. I don't think there's any other empire in history that would allow, let alone sanction such a thing, with the exception of the British who were also primarily interested in divesting themselves from their imperial holdings. On the foreign stage, America does and has backed horrendous dictators and fascists. As does and has every other empire in history. There is, though, a certain underlying theory in American politics - both right and left - that is disgusted with the notion of engagement in foreign wars and doesn't have the will to occupy foreign territory. This is what you would hope for as a natural result of a functioning democracy where people had a short tolerance for the personal deprivations inflicted by a state bent on imperial expansion. No, it ain't Switzerland. I wish it were. But speaking with Syrian refugees and Lebanese and Tibetan dissidents and South Vietnamese and Cubans I've known in my life, I've kind of come to the conclusion that international relations are a jungle where most states are predators and most individuals are prey. America does at least give lip service to the notion that individuals shouldn't be preyed upon, and tries to export that meme.