4 ms·

Is your argument that "if there is a legitimate use for something, the government has no right to regulate it, even if it might be used criminally?" I think tha

Is your argument that "if there is a legitimate use for something, the government has no right to regulate it, even if it might be used criminally?" I think that is equally absurd. There is no rational reason to adopt a dogmatic position such as "Either the government must ALWAYS regulate X or the government must NEVER regulate X". It is entirely consistent (and imo a much better idea) to say "The government should sometimes regulate X, and sometimes not, under the following conditions...". To say that the government can and should regulate cash transfers of over a certain amount (say $10,000) but not smaller transfers, is perfectly reasonable.

smsm42 13y ago
No, this is not my argument. My argument is that telling "criminals can use X, therefore X should be under right government control" will lead you to a police state very fast, since for every X useful to ordinary citizen same X would be useful for a criminal, because criminals are people too. So this argument allows to justify control over anything. Either you accept that for you it is OK that the state controls everything, or you have to drop that argument. >>> To say that the government can and should regulate cash transfers of over a certain amount (say $10,000) but not smaller transfers, is perfectly reasonable. Because 10000 is a magic number which creates entirely different situation, right? Or because you think government can actually regulate any transfer, even for $0.01, but for practical reasons actually bothers only with large ones? There's absolutely no difference between $5000+$5000 and $10000 in any aspect that may relate to legitimacy of government regulation. If the difference is practical - that means you'd accept any number that seems practical, i.e. if the government tells you $1 is practical now, you'd support the bound of $1. Or you have to explain where the number comes from and why it's different from others so that it is legit to regulate it but not lesser ones. One commenter argued that the bound is power, but no one in his sane mind can argue $10K gives one any power except the power to buy a crappy car or a decent vacation.

smsm42 13y ago

No, this is not my argument. My argument is that telling "criminals can use X, therefore X should be under right government control" will lead you to a police state very fast, since for every X useful to ordinary citizen same X would be useful for a criminal, because criminals are people too. So this argument allows to justify control over anything. Either you accept that for you it is OK that the state controls everything, or you have to drop that argument. >>> To say that the government can and should regulate cash transfers of over a certain amount (say $10,000) but not smaller transfers, is perfectly reasonable. Because 10000 is a magic number which creates entirely different situation, right? Or because you think government can actually regulate any transfer, even for $0.01, but for practical reasons actually bothers only with large ones? There's absolutely no difference between $5000+$5000 and $10000 in any aspect that may relate to legitimacy of government regulation. If the difference is practical - that means you'd accept any number that seems practical, i.e. if the government tells you $1 is practical now, you'd support the bound of $1. Or you have to explain where the number comes from and why it's different from others so that it is legit to regulate it but not lesser ones. One commenter argued that the bound is power, but no one in his sane mind can argue $10K gives one any power except the power to buy a crappy car or a decent vacation.