5 ms·

Freedom here means transacting without: -- anti-money laundering safeguards sanctions enforcement consumer protection tax enforcement fraud prevention sys

Freedom here means transacting without: -- anti-money laundering safeguards sanctions enforcement consumer protection tax enforcement fraud prevention systems -- It is very true that technology won't get you this freedom from sensible legal requirements we impose on financial transactions. That's obviously a good thing, but I guess people who are in crypto would disagree.

palmfacehn 1y ago
[flagged]
- user34283 1y ago
  Talk about rejecting nuance, but now the state is "all powerful" because you can't transact privately. Yes, the state has control of finance and transactions. It always does. Democracies are build on principles like Popular sovereignty, political equality, or the rule of law. Private transactions or tax-free property isn't a democratic feature. Yes, it's that obvious.
  - palmfacehn 1y ago
    Even if you accept those premises, reasonable people would expect limits on the power of the state to infringe upon property rights, even when backed by a popular majority. Furthermore, the principle of individual self-ownership is a key starting point for modern, liberal ideas of law. Of course you are free to reject those premises, but I would characterize that as authoritarian rather than obvious.
    - immibis 1y ago
      Both should be limited. Almost everything should be limited. Deciding the limits is called politics.
      - palmfacehn 1y ago
        Political solutions are often messy and complex. Pragmatic fixes are rarely obvious and overreaches are common. Reforms are ongoing. Conversely, absolutists have no use for nuance. The war on cash is a good example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... https://ij.org/federal-court-rules-in-favor-of-convenience-store-owner/ https://ij.org/federal-court-rules-in-favor-of-convenience-s...
        Arainach 1y ago
        Something being imperfect doesn't mean that getting rid of it is an improvement. Should civil forfeiture be heavily reformed, and is it being obviously abused? Yes. Is the ability to use cryptocurrency to bypass sanctions, fund oppressive regimes, drive criminal empires, and power a new generation of scams a much worse problem? Absolutely. Proponents of a system explicitly designed to enable financial fraud shocked when governments apply fraud rules to them, news at 11.
        immibis 1y ago
        The ability of money to deice criminal empires is a problem. Abolish money.
    - user34283 1y ago
      Property rights exist within a legal framework defined by the people, through law. What you're talking about here with self-ownership and the state "infringing" upon property rights when you're taxed and can't transact privately, it seems less than "reasonable". It seems like you're trying to paint routine and widely accepted functions of democratic governments as if they were unreasonable, authoritarian overreach.
      - roenxi 1y ago
        Authoritarian overreach is itself a routine and widely accepted aspect of democratic governments. Authoritarians get 1 vote/person, same as everyone else. They're allowed to advocate for policies and score the occasional outrageous political win, just like everyone else. There are a lot of them out there and they are a significant political force. Something being routine and done democratically is no defence at all of it being liberal or in line with the principle of property rights. Or even of it being legal in a lot of instances, democratic governments lose legal challenges quite regularly. And in this case, attacks on private transactions are absolutely unreasonable authoritarian overreach. The government doesn't need to surveil people when they have no reason to suspect those people of wrongdoing.
        palmfacehn 1y ago
        Voters generally seem willing to embrace authoritarian solutions when it is applied to the things they dislike. The political classes have multiple incentives to appeal to those voters. Outside of a few outliers, neither group generally concerns themselves with the underlying principles of civil liberties until their favored causes are attacked. Hypocrisy abounds. Reasoning from first principles is dismissed as ideological extremism. From here it is easy to see how the incentives of a democratic-regulatory-state work against property rights, free speech, privacy rights and other civil liberties.
        user34283 1y ago
        Absolute financial privacy is not a liberal principle. It's a fantasy cooked up by crypto enthusiasts and anti-government ideologues. You cannot enforce sanctions, prevent money laundering, protect consumers, or collect taxes if transactions are private. It's just not going to work.
- lokar 1y ago
  In an organized society there is no absolute right to personal property, there never has been and there never will be.
fatchan 1y ago
Freedom with crypto means I can pay bills without unjust barriers, and no individual and especially no "financial institution" (ultimately the governments) decides if my transaction goes through or can confiscate the money without confiscating me. With Paypal, Stripe, Visa, Mastercard, and all the payment gateways and controlled entities in between, you will be banned for a "trade secret" reason which they have no legal obligation to reveal. Example 1: https://kiwifarms.st/threads/payment-processor-censorship-visa-mastercard-stripe-paypal-etc.224937/ https://kiwifarms.st/threads/payment-processor-censorship-vi... (You may discredit the source and ignore factual information and numerous examples at your own discretion) When you lost the ability to pay for things, you can be starved, of food and more importantly your principles and dignity. Like many other issues that I consider political, what is important to me and what I believe to be actually righteous in the end is more important than the issues of e.g. personal responsibility from being scammed, or criminal and money laundering transactions. Remember where the term "money laundering" came from.

palmfacehn 1y ago

[flagged]

user34283 1y ago
Talk about rejecting nuance, but now the state is "all powerful" because you can't transact privately. Yes, the state has control of finance and transactions. It always does. Democracies are build on principles like Popular sovereignty, political equality, or the rule of law. Private transactions or tax-free property isn't a democratic feature. Yes, it's that obvious.
- palmfacehn 1y ago
  Even if you accept those premises, reasonable people would expect limits on the power of the state to infringe upon property rights, even when backed by a popular majority. Furthermore, the principle of individual self-ownership is a key starting point for modern, liberal ideas of law. Of course you are free to reject those premises, but I would characterize that as authoritarian rather than obvious.
  - immibis 1y ago
    Both should be limited. Almost everything should be limited. Deciding the limits is called politics.
    - palmfacehn 1y ago
      Political solutions are often messy and complex. Pragmatic fixes are rarely obvious and overreaches are common. Reforms are ongoing. Conversely, absolutists have no use for nuance. The war on cash is a good example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... https://ij.org/federal-court-rules-in-favor-of-convenience-store-owner/ https://ij.org/federal-court-rules-in-favor-of-convenience-s...
      - Arainach 1y ago
        Something being imperfect doesn't mean that getting rid of it is an improvement. Should civil forfeiture be heavily reformed, and is it being obviously abused? Yes. Is the ability to use cryptocurrency to bypass sanctions, fund oppressive regimes, drive criminal empires, and power a new generation of scams a much worse problem? Absolutely. Proponents of a system explicitly designed to enable financial fraud shocked when governments apply fraud rules to them, news at 11.
        immibis 1y ago
        The ability of money to deice criminal empires is a problem. Abolish money.
  - user34283 1y ago
    Property rights exist within a legal framework defined by the people, through law. What you're talking about here with self-ownership and the state "infringing" upon property rights when you're taxed and can't transact privately, it seems less than "reasonable". It seems like you're trying to paint routine and widely accepted functions of democratic governments as if they were unreasonable, authoritarian overreach.
    - roenxi 1y ago
      Authoritarian overreach is itself a routine and widely accepted aspect of democratic governments. Authoritarians get 1 vote/person, same as everyone else. They're allowed to advocate for policies and score the occasional outrageous political win, just like everyone else. There are a lot of them out there and they are a significant political force. Something being routine and done democratically is no defence at all of it being liberal or in line with the principle of property rights. Or even of it being legal in a lot of instances, democratic governments lose legal challenges quite regularly. And in this case, attacks on private transactions are absolutely unreasonable authoritarian overreach. The government doesn't need to surveil people when they have no reason to suspect those people of wrongdoing.
      - palmfacehn 1y ago
        Voters generally seem willing to embrace authoritarian solutions when it is applied to the things they dislike. The political classes have multiple incentives to appeal to those voters. Outside of a few outliers, neither group generally concerns themselves with the underlying principles of civil liberties until their favored causes are attacked. Hypocrisy abounds. Reasoning from first principles is dismissed as ideological extremism. From here it is easy to see how the incentives of a democratic-regulatory-state work against property rights, free speech, privacy rights and other civil liberties.
      - user34283 1y ago
        Absolute financial privacy is not a liberal principle. It's a fantasy cooked up by crypto enthusiasts and anti-government ideologues. You cannot enforce sanctions, prevent money laundering, protect consumers, or collect taxes if transactions are private. It's just not going to work.
lokar 1y ago
In an organized society there is no absolute right to personal property, there never has been and there never will be.

fatchan 1y ago

Freedom with crypto means I can pay bills without unjust barriers, and no individual and especially no "financial institution" (ultimately the governments) decides if my transaction goes through or can confiscate the money without confiscating me. With Paypal, Stripe, Visa, Mastercard, and all the payment gateways and controlled entities in between, you will be banned for a "trade secret" reason which they have no legal obligation to reveal. Example 1: https://kiwifarms.st/threads/payment-processor-censorship-visa-mastercard-stripe-paypal-etc.224937/ https://kiwifarms.st/threads/payment-processor-censorship-vi... (You may discredit the source and ignore factual information and numerous examples at your own discretion) When you lost the ability to pay for things, you can be starved, of food and more importantly your principles and dignity. Like many other issues that I consider political, what is important to me and what I believe to be actually righteous in the end is more important than the issues of e.g. personal responsibility from being scammed, or criminal and money laundering transactions. Remember where the term "money laundering" came from.