> I disagree vehemently to this proposition. I have never agreed or voted to get those regulations in place. They are not voluntary. But anyone falling for tether today is making an individual decision.
Nevertheless, you benefit from them. It's not like you have to sign up to the regulation that makes your murder illegal. Don't you think it would be foolish to expect every generation to have to rediscover, through trial and error, the benefits of society and government?
Law against murder is: if you do it, you will be jailed.
Regulation against murder is: you cant have anything that harms another human being, and we need to check you up regularly to make sure you haven't killed anyone.
Regulation is not abiding for the law. Thats what lawsuits are about. Regulation is about preventing law to be broken with preventive measures.
> Don't you think it would be foolish to expect every generation to have to rediscover, through trial and error, the benefits of society and government?
I wish we had that, but we can't, we have to live entire generations with laws designed by previous ones. Isn't the drug war on the US a prime example of that? If you put it up for a vote, the majority would vote to make it legal or not prosecute it.
But this is not a topic about the mere existence of government, its about an ecosystem that was born and fueled about how the government and the banks crap on people, and trying to make it better with banks and government is going the other way.
> I wish we had that, but we can't, we have to live entire generations with laws designed by previous ones.
There's an expression that describes your attitude, it's "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The thing about "the laws designed by previous [generations]" is that most of them are good, and the ones that aren't will eventually be abolished or modified, in a democratic society.
> and trying to make it better
The attempt is ignorant "disruption" that's repeating, word for word many of the long-solved mistakes of the past. If you want to make something better, you can't focus on the just problems of the current solution, but you also have to focus on all the problems the current solution already solved. To do otherwise is foolishness.
[1] For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_... lists several instances.
Sure, but violating the regulation has no victim. If you sold lemonade on a stand in california, you would be breaking regulations but there is no victim that would ever sue you for damages.
Regulations, at least in general, about preventing something from happening by restricting action. Legal action is about responsibility: if something happens you are going to be accountable for that which happened.
Tether deserves a lawsuit on fraud, because they committed fraud. But we don't need the sec for that.
> There's an expression that describes your attitude, it's "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The thing about "the laws designed by previous [generations]" is that most of them are good, and the ones that aren't will eventually be abolished or modified, in a democratic society.
Tell that to all the people doing 25+y for doing or dealing pot. They must agree with you!
> For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_.... lists several instances.
I'm no expert on arms dealing but isnt the US Gov the one that gives out the most weapons to radicals? I thought the US as a successful exporter of weapons..and certainly of violence!
Don't miss the fact that regulation is excercised by people with the same incentives as anybody else, but with more power.
> I'm no expert on arms dealing but isnt the US Gov the one that gives out the most weapons to radicals? I thought the US as a successful exporter of weapons..and certainly of violence!
I feel like you're just going for cheap points, but the thing is you don't even get those if you can't stay on topic. It's kinda pointless to talk with you if you keep running off on random tangents. Aren't we talking about financial regulation?
Actually, I'm not even sure if there's anything to your comments beyond an emotional hostility to the concept of regulation or something represented by it, so maybe we're not even communicating at all.
The SEC is killing people today as well. Its barring most of the world on investing in the US on startups that could lift people out of poverty, increase quality of life and even help in fields like medicine, etc. And the ICO market is an example of how much demand for investment there is. The lesson is not that unregulated markets have scam artists and fraudsters, that we always knew, what is new is that the regulated market is silently opressing.
And to add insult to injury, the most egregious cases of mis-regulation have made the regulators screw over the general population instead of the institutions they failed to regulate.
On this very site ,most people can invest in the startups they read about everyday and work for everyday.
You're arguing with a straw man of your own design.
> The SEC is killing people today as well. Its barring most of the world on investing in the US on startups that could lift people out of poverty
Jesus, that's the most ridiculous, hyperbolic thing I've read this month.
Its basic microeconomics. You will learn a lot of read about it!
Ah, that explains it. You know just enough to be dangerous.
I haven't made a proposition. I just pointed out that historically, when societies have made decisions about this sort of thing, they've generally decided that such individuals require protection via regulations.
In general, most of the laws we are expected to follow are not ones we personally agreed to or voted on. I'm not sure that makes them less "organic." If you're arguing that you should not be expected to follow laws that you didn't personally agree to, I think that's a bigger conversation.
Nobody agreed to not kill people either. Thats why killing is also legal in many circumstances. Also arguing that we all agreed to the rules there in would mean that if slavery were legal it would be ok, becase we all agreed to it. But thats another topic.
The point is that if I believe in an institution without regulation the option between me and that institution is severed by an unrelated third party. I dont want to ask the SEC any permission to buy tethers.
No. That's a poor argument that, in this case, falsely equivocates slavery with financial regulation.
"I dont want to ask the SEC any permission to buy tethers."
That's not what's happening in the least. But if Tether is a scam, then it will be shut down, as it should be. And no amount of "freedom" will justify running a scam on other people.
You say its a poor argument, but you dont say why.
> That's not what's happening in the least. But if Tether is a scam, then it will be shut down, as it should be. And no amount of "freedom" will justify running a scam on other people.
Tether will crash itself if it doesnt have the money its supposed to have, we don't need the sec for that ,the same way the SEC didnt start the 2008 meltdown or Enron's demise. Its even more egregious if you consider tether is not in the US and affects non-US citizens the most. So why has the SEC the power to intervene in other countries with people that haven't elected them?
Its purely an act on a position of power, not on agreed rules, and thats some of the spirit that sorrounds crypto. Crypo will be more mature if it deals with this problems without government intervention.