4 ms·

If you think big banks should be the world's money police, then yes. Honestly, I would rather have that than have the federal government do it with a giant NSA

If you think big banks should be the world's money police, then yes. Honestly, I would rather have that than have the federal government do it with a giant NSA-for-banks program. But my inner libertarian finds this arrangement suboptimal. And the government is probably watching it anyway. They certainly have an enormous amount of subpoena power, to the extent that big finance companies have IT systems just for satisfying subpoenas and ever-increasing regulatory data requirements. Edit: the answer to your question, supposing it's not rhetorical, is "yes". Elites and their subordinates have the same ethical incentives as everyone else, but are closer to the political source. This can be good or bad. I think a lot of history happens because of elites realigning their moral goals in response to incentives.

javert 13y ago
There is no reason for money laundering to even be a crime. Rather than cracking down hard on everyone's freedom, we should just go to proper war (not a 10-year occupaiton, I mean get in it to win it) when we have to to destroy enemy governments or terrorist training camps. This is a root cause analysis.
- mercurial 13y ago
  > This is a root cause analysis. Colour me impressed. I'm comforted to learn that the US and its various allied countries did not go to Iraq and Afghanistan to "win it", and did not prosecute a "proper war" in Iraq. Presumably, Saddam's military will emerge any time now. I look forward to the US invading various parts of South America, and escalating to the "proper" level of violence in Afghanistan.
  - javert 13y ago
    > I'm comforted to learn that the US and its various allied countries did not go to Iraq and Afghanistan to "win it", and did not prosecute a "proper war" in Iraq. Those wars were massive self-sacrifices for America, just like Vietnam. For instance, Saddam was defeated very easily, in the very beginning. > I look forward to the US invading various parts of South America That's not an argument against what I said. We have no reason to attack South America.
    - mercurial 13y ago
      > Those wars were massive self-sacrifices for America, just like Vietnam. For instance, Saddam was defeated very easily, in the very beginning. Self-sacrifice? These wars were strategic failures, in spite of the US' best efforts, simply because you can't defeat guerillas the same way you defeat regular armies. You sound like you haven't been paying attention to what has been going on since, well, WWII. How many asymmetrical conflicts have been won by large modern armies since? The various decolonization wars, Vietnam, Afghanistan (you can't really accuse Russia of playing soft, there) ended up the same way. The UK were successful in Malaya, and the French had effectively destroyed the operational capabilities of the FLN by the end of the war in Algeria, but even this was not enough to ensure victory. Hell, even in Northern Ireland, it took decades to turn the IRA away from terrorism (and that after it managed to kick the UK out of the rest of Ireland). Asymmetrical warfare is hard. Moreover, suggesting that a "proper war" should be prosecuted, presumably with heightened levels of violence, after hundreds of thousands of people died or were maimed for life is insulting. > That's not an argument against what I said. We have no reason to attack South America. Your argument was that in order to defend "freedom" (because, really, these money-laundering rules are just too repressive), the US should attack the issue at the root. Guess what? Most of the money being laundered is drug money. It's an absolutely astounding amount of cash. Most of the world's cocaine comes from Colombia and Bolivia, while the opiates come from Afghanistan.
      - javert 13y ago
        > Self-sacrifice? These wars were strategic failures, in spite of the US' best efforts, simply because you can't defeat guerillas the same way you defeat regular armies. These wars were self-sacrificial because they had no valuable objective for the American people (i.e., to secure their safety). Trying to "democratize" them is a futile act, and is not worth spending trillions of dollars on, and killing thousands of American soldiers. > Your argument was that in order to defend "freedom" (because, really, these money-laundering rules are just too repressive), the US should attack the issue at the root. Guess what? Most of the money being laundered is drug money. It's an absolutely astounding amount of cash. Most of the world's cocaine comes from Colombia and Bolivia, while the opiates come from Afghanistan. Right, and the "war on drugs" is also self-sacrificial, because, again, it has no value for the American people. Again, it is a war that can't be won, that simply calls for sacrificing unlimited amounts of money and some lives, and turns northern Mexico into a war zone as part of a perverse side-effect. So I'm saying: Let these countries produce as much coke and opium as they want; we will be happy to import them freely.
- notahacker 13y ago
  So basically, the US government should spend even more money and kill even more people to prosecute the "war on drugs" and "war on terror" whilst not impinging upon the "freedom" of regulated financial institutions to intentionally fund the mafiosi and terrorists they're fighting against. Really?
  - javert 13y ago
    The "war on drugs" is a massive self-sacrifice for America and should not be prosecuted. The "war on terror" is also an improper "war" that has no victory/termination condition, ever. So neither of those points are valid objections to my argument. The alternative to the "war on terror," which also allows America to be safe, is to draw a bright red line: Any government that harbors terrorists will be deposed via a very swift war using the full brunt of the American military. (We would probably only have to wage such a war once; repeated examples would be unnecessary, presuming we don't elect weak presidents.)
    - dagw 13y ago
      Do you think the Somali government could actually do something about their terrorist problem even if they really really wanted to? Do think the terrorists in Somalia would in any way be opposed to the US invading their country and toppling the government? And finally what do you think should happen the week after the US finishes toppling said government and withdraws and how will that negatively affect the terrorists?
      - javert 13y ago
        The US government has only one proper purpose, and it is to protect Americans from physical force. I think that if a country harbors terrorists, the US should depose the government, and withdraw. The US should threated to come back and do it again, repeating as necessary, until the government stops harboring terrorists. In fact, that it the only way to stop terrorism. And it would be incredibly effective, since the US would only have to do it once or twice in the whole world (or maybe even 0 times), to prove that they will do it. I don't believe in the use of initiated force. But a government that harbors terrorists is initiating force against the US, and it's morally proper for the US to use retaliatory force to resolve the problem. Force will be met with force. Don't use force, and you won't be subject to it. In the 1 case in the world of a failed state---Somalia---I think a reasonable strategy would be to pick a winner and provide them with funding and weapons to establish a government over the territory.
- caf 13y ago
  Money laundering is a crime for exactly the same reason that destruction of evidence is a crime.
- tbarbugli 13y ago
  > There is no reason for money laundering to even be a crime. Thats a funny idea, have you ever heard about criminal organisations ? what should US do about criminality, attack its own land ?

javert 13y ago

There is no reason for money laundering to even be a crime. Rather than cracking down hard on everyone's freedom, we should just go to proper war (not a 10-year occupaiton, I mean get in it to win it) when we have to to destroy enemy governments or terrorist training camps. This is a root cause analysis.

mercurial 13y ago
> This is a root cause analysis. Colour me impressed. I'm comforted to learn that the US and its various allied countries did not go to Iraq and Afghanistan to "win it", and did not prosecute a "proper war" in Iraq. Presumably, Saddam's military will emerge any time now. I look forward to the US invading various parts of South America, and escalating to the "proper" level of violence in Afghanistan.
- javert 13y ago
  > I'm comforted to learn that the US and its various allied countries did not go to Iraq and Afghanistan to "win it", and did not prosecute a "proper war" in Iraq. Those wars were massive self-sacrifices for America, just like Vietnam. For instance, Saddam was defeated very easily, in the very beginning. > I look forward to the US invading various parts of South America That's not an argument against what I said. We have no reason to attack South America.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    > Those wars were massive self-sacrifices for America, just like Vietnam. For instance, Saddam was defeated very easily, in the very beginning. Self-sacrifice? These wars were strategic failures, in spite of the US' best efforts, simply because you can't defeat guerillas the same way you defeat regular armies. You sound like you haven't been paying attention to what has been going on since, well, WWII. How many asymmetrical conflicts have been won by large modern armies since? The various decolonization wars, Vietnam, Afghanistan (you can't really accuse Russia of playing soft, there) ended up the same way. The UK were successful in Malaya, and the French had effectively destroyed the operational capabilities of the FLN by the end of the war in Algeria, but even this was not enough to ensure victory. Hell, even in Northern Ireland, it took decades to turn the IRA away from terrorism (and that after it managed to kick the UK out of the rest of Ireland). Asymmetrical warfare is hard. Moreover, suggesting that a "proper war" should be prosecuted, presumably with heightened levels of violence, after hundreds of thousands of people died or were maimed for life is insulting. > That's not an argument against what I said. We have no reason to attack South America. Your argument was that in order to defend "freedom" (because, really, these money-laundering rules are just too repressive), the US should attack the issue at the root. Guess what? Most of the money being laundered is drug money. It's an absolutely astounding amount of cash. Most of the world's cocaine comes from Colombia and Bolivia, while the opiates come from Afghanistan.
    - javert 13y ago
      > Self-sacrifice? These wars were strategic failures, in spite of the US' best efforts, simply because you can't defeat guerillas the same way you defeat regular armies. These wars were self-sacrificial because they had no valuable objective for the American people (i.e., to secure their safety). Trying to "democratize" them is a futile act, and is not worth spending trillions of dollars on, and killing thousands of American soldiers. > Your argument was that in order to defend "freedom" (because, really, these money-laundering rules are just too repressive), the US should attack the issue at the root. Guess what? Most of the money being laundered is drug money. It's an absolutely astounding amount of cash. Most of the world's cocaine comes from Colombia and Bolivia, while the opiates come from Afghanistan. Right, and the "war on drugs" is also self-sacrificial, because, again, it has no value for the American people. Again, it is a war that can't be won, that simply calls for sacrificing unlimited amounts of money and some lives, and turns northern Mexico into a war zone as part of a perverse side-effect. So I'm saying: Let these countries produce as much coke and opium as they want; we will be happy to import them freely.
notahacker 13y ago
So basically, the US government should spend even more money and kill even more people to prosecute the "war on drugs" and "war on terror" whilst not impinging upon the "freedom" of regulated financial institutions to intentionally fund the mafiosi and terrorists they're fighting against. Really?
- javert 13y ago
  The "war on drugs" is a massive self-sacrifice for America and should not be prosecuted. The "war on terror" is also an improper "war" that has no victory/termination condition, ever. So neither of those points are valid objections to my argument. The alternative to the "war on terror," which also allows America to be safe, is to draw a bright red line: Any government that harbors terrorists will be deposed via a very swift war using the full brunt of the American military. (We would probably only have to wage such a war once; repeated examples would be unnecessary, presuming we don't elect weak presidents.)
  - dagw 13y ago
    Do you think the Somali government could actually do something about their terrorist problem even if they really really wanted to? Do think the terrorists in Somalia would in any way be opposed to the US invading their country and toppling the government? And finally what do you think should happen the week after the US finishes toppling said government and withdraws and how will that negatively affect the terrorists?
    - javert 13y ago
      The US government has only one proper purpose, and it is to protect Americans from physical force. I think that if a country harbors terrorists, the US should depose the government, and withdraw. The US should threated to come back and do it again, repeating as necessary, until the government stops harboring terrorists. In fact, that it the only way to stop terrorism. And it would be incredibly effective, since the US would only have to do it once or twice in the whole world (or maybe even 0 times), to prove that they will do it. I don't believe in the use of initiated force. But a government that harbors terrorists is initiating force against the US, and it's morally proper for the US to use retaliatory force to resolve the problem. Force will be met with force. Don't use force, and you won't be subject to it. In the 1 case in the world of a failed state---Somalia---I think a reasonable strategy would be to pick a winner and provide them with funding and weapons to establish a government over the territory.
caf 13y ago
Money laundering is a crime for exactly the same reason that destruction of evidence is a crime.
tbarbugli 13y ago
> There is no reason for money laundering to even be a crime. Thats a funny idea, have you ever heard about criminal organisations ? what should US do about criminality, attack its own land ?