3 ms·

In a democracy, those limitless powers are limited by voters. The government can only pass laws and implement regulations that are acceptable to a democratic pu

by ttul 3y ago

In a democracy, those limitless powers are limited by voters. The government can only pass laws and implement regulations that are acceptable to a democratic public. To the extent that voters want to move their money freely around the world, they also want policies that prevent the transfer of money to terrorists or child molesters. These powers are not limitless at all. They are limited through democracy. Crypto is therefore a way to work around the wishes of the majority of others. That’s anti-democratic. It’s not freedom so much as it is tyranny.

southernplaces7 3y ago
What an obscenely naive view of how politics works in even democratic countries (and this is not to speak of the majority of the world's countries that are either not democratic, partly democratic or "democratic" but heavily corrupted by insider money and special back scratching.) Yet because it's ostensibly and sometimes partly genuine, you think it should brook no resistance? You really think that all permitted activity should simply follow expressions of voter will as if they weren't regularly misled by emotional manipulation, corruption, bribery and idiotic popular beliefs? Imagine for example how noble voter will felt about homosexuality in most of the western world 40 years ago. Should all those lgbt people have just neatly folded away their sexual needs and preferences until one day they became legal? No. They found private ways of sometimes, Oh gosh, breaking laws. This can apply in many contexts without being immoral by default. Somehow however in your curious worldview, crypto having its bad uses means it should all be banned and is somehow an expression of "tyranny" (truly, wtf?) but democratic will despite its numerous flaws, holes and opportunities for corruption should be inviolable? Somebody moving their funds from some dysfunctional "democracy" to a safer place, or protecting their assets from disintegration because of X new government being riddled with corruption and state-level theft doesn't negatively affect my freedom. A worldwide state effort by both formally transparent countries and deeply corrupt countries painting themselves as participants in "transparency", to crush all forms of private financial transactions and personal financial security outside their controlled lines most definitely might affect my freedom, and yours one day maybe. To entirely rely on this deeply mixed, highly dubious range of systems for handling votes and public will as a means of protecting a basic right to privacy and free use of one's person and property (yes even the economic kind) is ridiculous. To tell people who right now have need of something like crypto at least as a concept that they're the ones threatening global freedom and causing tyranny is laughable. It's blinkered, narrow-minded and deeply privileged nonsense passing as a rational argument. Just because your life doesn't make you need economic privacy doesn't mean that the majority of the world living in far from ideal economic conditions can be ignored for needing that very option. And enough already with the smearing of things with arguments around child abusers, terrorists and blah blah. Just about everything people use to do something private in any way could be used to promote some abuse. Should for example privacy of communications also thus be banned as "tyranny"? How many disgusting cynics keep using these same tired garbage arguments for any intrusion they care to covet?
rubyfan 3y ago
This is the best argument I’ve heard to date for regulation in a democracy.
mattrighetti 3y ago
Everything that involves privacy could potentially go around the wishes of the majority, yet everyone has the right to it (so they say) which is guaranteed by democratic laws nowadays. We all know, for example, that terrorist groups plan their attacks on platforms that use e2e encryption, are you suggesting to end privacy for all to be able to catch a bunch of terrorists? Because there is no gray area in all of this, you either have it or you don’t.
jMyles 3y ago
So it all boils down to the sole franchise of the vote as the only way to bring societal change. That's not something that the information age is going to afford, and I thought that - pause given by threads like this notwithstanding - the foundations of hacking and cyperspace independence were meant as a surface on which to build something better. I don't think that the world's poor and disenfranchised can afford to wait around for generation after generation while we try to figure out how to inspire change in international finance by using only the debilitated and purely symbolic tactic of voting. > In a democracy, those limitless powers are limited by voters I just want to point out that, empirically speaking - if you hold the US and Europe states to be democratic institutions - this is observably false. Voting has not achieved limitations unto halting empire, predation, and extraction.

by ttul 3y ago

southernplaces7 3y ago

What an obscenely naive view of how politics works in even democratic countries (and this is not to speak of the majority of the world's countries that are either not democratic, partly democratic or "democratic" but heavily corrupted by insider money and special back scratching.) Yet because it's ostensibly and sometimes partly genuine, you think it should brook no resistance? You really think that all permitted activity should simply follow expressions of voter will as if they weren't regularly misled by emotional manipulation, corruption, bribery and idiotic popular beliefs? Imagine for example how noble voter will felt about homosexuality in most of the western world 40 years ago. Should all those lgbt people have just neatly folded away their sexual needs and preferences until one day they became legal? No. They found private ways of sometimes, Oh gosh, breaking laws. This can apply in many contexts without being immoral by default. Somehow however in your curious worldview, crypto having its bad uses means it should all be banned and is somehow an expression of "tyranny" (truly, wtf?) but democratic will despite its numerous flaws, holes and opportunities for corruption should be inviolable? Somebody moving their funds from some dysfunctional "democracy" to a safer place, or protecting their assets from disintegration because of X new government being riddled with corruption and state-level theft doesn't negatively affect my freedom. A worldwide state effort by both formally transparent countries and deeply corrupt countries painting themselves as participants in "transparency", to crush all forms of private financial transactions and personal financial security outside their controlled lines most definitely might affect my freedom, and yours one day maybe. To entirely rely on this deeply mixed, highly dubious range of systems for handling votes and public will as a means of protecting a basic right to privacy and free use of one's person and property (yes even the economic kind) is ridiculous. To tell people who right now have need of something like crypto at least as a concept that they're the ones threatening global freedom and causing tyranny is laughable. It's blinkered, narrow-minded and deeply privileged nonsense passing as a rational argument. Just because your life doesn't make you need economic privacy doesn't mean that the majority of the world living in far from ideal economic conditions can be ignored for needing that very option. And enough already with the smearing of things with arguments around child abusers, terrorists and blah blah. Just about everything people use to do something private in any way could be used to promote some abuse. Should for example privacy of communications also thus be banned as "tyranny"? How many disgusting cynics keep using these same tired garbage arguments for any intrusion they care to covet?

rubyfan 3y ago

This is the best argument I’ve heard to date for regulation in a democracy.

mattrighetti 3y ago

Everything that involves privacy could potentially go around the wishes of the majority, yet everyone has the right to it (so they say) which is guaranteed by democratic laws nowadays. We all know, for example, that terrorist groups plan their attacks on platforms that use e2e encryption, are you suggesting to end privacy for all to be able to catch a bunch of terrorists? Because there is no gray area in all of this, you either have it or you don’t.

jMyles 3y ago

So it all boils down to the sole franchise of the vote as the only way to bring societal change. That's not something that the information age is going to afford, and I thought that - pause given by threads like this notwithstanding - the foundations of hacking and cyperspace independence were meant as a surface on which to build something better. I don't think that the world's poor and disenfranchised can afford to wait around for generation after generation while we try to figure out how to inspire change in international finance by using only the debilitated and purely symbolic tactic of voting. > In a democracy, those limitless powers are limited by voters I just want to point out that, empirically speaking - if you hold the US and Europe states to be democratic institutions - this is observably false. Voting has not achieved limitations unto halting empire, predation, and extraction.