3 ms·

I think point 1 is to do with how you understand the argument. Logically the argument "X is bad, Y facilitates X therefore Y is bad" can be applied to pretty mu

I think point 1 is to do with how you understand the argument. Logically the argument "X is bad, Y facilitates X therefore Y is bad" can be applied to pretty much anything. But I think the real justification is meant to be that the reduction in crime that results from regulating large money transfers justifies the loss of freedom involved. I don't know if that's true (I've never seen any statistics on this subject) but I think that's really what is being argued. edit: Also, of course, whether or not you agree with the argument strongly depends on the values you place on crime and freedom.

smsm42 13y ago
>>> I don't know if that's true (I've never seen any statistics on this subject) I don't think 99.999% of people that are arguing this ever seen any statistics about it, let alone can explain how exactly they know how much reduction in crime justifies how much loss in freedom. I think it's just thing people say because they read somewhere that it is something you say when those pesky libertarians ask you why our freedoms are being eroded. "Oh, it's justified by reduction in crime and safety of the children, go away!" - and presto, they go away.