> the repeal of the parts of Glass-Steagall that separated commercial and investment banks, is what caused the banking catastrophe. This is like saying that p

> the repeal of the parts of Glass-Steagall that separated commercial and investment banks, is what caused the banking catastrophe. This is like saying that pulling a card from a house of cards is what "caused" its collapse. When in fact, the imposition of the unsustainable system onto us in the first place was the true problem. Everything else is just consequences. > despite using (sort of) similar protocols and having (sort of) similar names, these are not similar at all. Both are p2p protocols designed to enable censorship-resistance by eliminating centralized points of failure. Just as Napster was replaced by Bittorrent, so also E-Gold is replaced by Bitcoin. The persecution is actually what is driving the development of these liberating protocols. > What do we regulate that can't be swapped for "bitcoin" in that sentence? IE: we can't regulate drugs, at best we can only regulate how we plan to use violence against people who use drugs. This is exactly true! We can never "regulate" drugs (or Bitcoin) -- we can only regulate how we use _violence_ against people who use drugs (or Bitcoin.) But the question is, do we have a _right_ to use violence against people who are not thieves and murderers? And is it even possible to delegate such powers? For example, I have a right to defend myself using force. Therefore I have a right to hire a _bodyguard_ to defend me. Therefore we have the right to elect a _sheriff_ to defend us. (In fact it is the same right -- delegated.) But I do NOT have a right to beat and rob people. Therefore, neither do I have any right to hire a _bodyguard_ to beat and rob people. ...Therefore, neither does our _sheriff_ have any right to beat and rob people -- even if we voted for him to do so! Because you cannot delegate powers you never had. Perhaps you should be asking what makes us believe, as a society, that we have any right to use violence at all, except in defense from violence. Because if the authorities use violence for any other purpose, then aren't they the true criminals? Careful not to throw out the precedent from the Nuremberg Trials -- that just because someone is in authority, doesn't give them the right to victimize people. (Even if they were voted into power.)