5 ms·
Easy agree. There are all kinds of things you can do with money that should be (and are) illegal. Hiring a hitman should be illegal. Buying slaves should be i
by shkkmo 3y ago
Easy agree. There are all kinds of things you can do with money that should be (and are) illegal.
Hiring a hitman should be illegal.
Buying slaves should be illegal.
Bribing the court system should be illegal.
This is not to say that every restrictions is justified, but taking the stance that no restrictions are justified is advocating anarchy.
- z3c0 3y agoBeing a hitman should be illegal. Selling a slave should be illegal. Accepting a bribery should be illegal. Chop the trunk, not the branches.
- chunky1994 3y agoThese are all also illegal. This doesn't take way from the parent.
- lijok 3y ago[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Being a hitman should be illegal You don't see any reason why hiring a hitman should also be illegal?
- z3c0 3y agoNo, I don't. Hitmen being unavailable would make it a non-issue, and conspiracy to commit murder is already a crime. As I mentioned in another comment in this thread, the US justice system (and French, giving credit where it is due) is designed to protect the innocent minority, not pursue the guilty majority. Patchwork legislation and wasting resources pursuing consumers instead of providers results in an eroding of basic civil liberties that may not be immediately apparent when one is focused solely on the issues used to provoke such concessions.
- shkkmo 3y agoBoth a hitman and the hirer can both be consenting adults, but we still shouldn't make it legal for the hirer to give money to a hitman to kill someone. Thus you agree that there are things that consenting adults should not be allowed to do with their money. Edit: There are good points about how much freedom it is worth giving away to make it easy to catch this crime, but I have a hard time seeing an argument for it not being illegal.
- olalonde 3y agoAn essential point to bear in mind in these crimes: each one involves a victim who is, crucially, not a willing participant. People who participate in buying or selling cryptocurrency are willing participants.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Bribing the court >> each one involves a victim who is, crucially, not a willing participant. People who participate in buying or selling cryptocurrency are willing participants. The corrupt judge and barrister are very much willing. The negative effect is borne by a third party. Same with crypto. The buyer and seller are happy as can be. Then the rest of us have to pay to investigate, extradite, charge and liquidate Bankman-Fried and FTX.
- olalonde 3y agoSBF and FTX were charged for bribery and fraud, there were victims.
- shkkmo 3y agoYes, I listed categories where the linkage to unwilling victims was clear to make my point. Cryptocurrency has unwilling victims as well, but the linkage between cryptocurrency buyers and ransomware sellers is much less direct If you want a closer analogy, gambling is also something that happens between willing participants and is almost universally either regulated or outlawed. There are some good arguments that we need clearer, better regulations for cryptocurrency exchanges and a lower barrier of entry for low income/asset investors into securities. However, some level of regulation of cryptocurrency is clearly required and is not out of step how we handle other parts of the economy.
- alphanullmeric 3y agoIs the implication that the victims of hits and slavery are consenting?
- karpierz 3y agoIs the implication here that everyone who could be affected by a transaction should have to consent to it? In which case, sure. Hence why the government regulates transactions.
- alphanullmeric 3y agoWho is getting killed or enslaved when I trade on binance?