"Weak members" is a value judgement call, one that I don't believe he has any right to make. How do you know that a naive nerd was driven broke by pirate (yes, the culprit is pirate), who will now leave bitcoins forever, but had he stayed because we empathized, would have created a business that doubled the number of bitcoin users? Just because they sucked at picking dodgy schemes doesn't mean they're a weak member in everything, and that we should celebrate them fucking off. Even geniuses can be wrong.
/sigh. Again with the exile. We're not kicking them out. We're not even "celebrating them fucking off". We're just not patting them on the head, saying "it's OK, baby, let me cover your losses." Don't get me wrong, Pirate needs to pay his debts. But no bailouts. If someone doesn't get all their Bitcoins back (which is a certainty, either a lot of people are going to get fucked somewhat, or a few people are going to get fucked royally, or a lot of people are going to get fucked royally - all depends on whether Pirate sticks around long enough to pay anything), I do not support covering that loss.
Neither I, nor anyone else, is making the "weak" judgment call. Those people who can't hack the loss judge
themselves the weaker members, and prove it by getting out. Those that stick around have proven themselves more fit - again, not necessarily in all things, simply more fit to manage their own finances - by not putting more than they could afford to lose in a magic black box with "7% weekly!!!" printed on it.
"Doing it out of self interest" doesn't explain anything. Give me an example of one animal or plant on Earth that does not do something repetitively out of self interest.
That has been my point all along. Acting in one's own self interest is the only way you can remain fit for continued survival, whether that is in the market, or in the competition for food.
What you do in self interest is not what causes you to remain fit. What causes you to remain fit is, firstly, a change in the environment to require the need for your fitness to be checked, and secondly, that your linear weaknesses do not fall beyond the scope of the new fitness requirements.
Acting in one's best interest may fail - be insufficient to ensure continued fitness - but it's still a required state. If the person in your example failed to act in their own best interest or acted against it, for instance, learned about the law, and then immediately phoned up the FBI and confessed, then they would be rendered unfit - dead. The same goes for just sitting. Furthermore, of those that do run, the weaker members, those that get caught because they weren't fast or clever enough to evade the dragnet, increase the average level of competency when they do get caught. Those that remain are the more fit. It's not the conditions that kill, but the inability to meet them. Desire is necessary, but not solely sufficient.
Self regulation is self interest
plus self control. Let logic guide your greed, not the other way around.
