Topic: US BITCOIN REGULATION "FOR" or "AGAINST" (Read 6257 times)

There must be some regulation to prevent criminals from using the ciptomonedas to carry out illicit activities, or they can be used to commit crimes or launder dirty money.

Crypto industry is a wild west at the moment..and that refrains average Joe from investing. Regulation will be a good thing in the long run because it will fuel mass adoption. Non techy people will feel more comfortable investing their money if they know they are protected from scams.

wave to you for making sensi spliffs some turkeys need to work on their arguments NYC;)

I don't know it seems like you want to argue about something that happened decades before either of us were born.  Instead of argue what I did is I got off my ass, embraced the system and actually did something to make life better for me and my neighbors by changing the law through regulation.  What did you do, whine about how awful America is?

Oh wow and he did that all by himself? Wasn't he like, you know, working for and representing the government? haha but what the hell am I doing still talking to you. Bye.

A dumb fat man named Harry Anslinger who was a racist.

Well I can certainly see why some people would want to ignore him. He has repeatedly insulted me (alas subtly) and well...OK let's try this one more time Viceroy:

How come there was a ban to be repealed? Who banned Marijuana?

Look everyone, the anarchist is afraid of free speech.  He wants no regulation because he can just bury his head in the sand when it gets hard to defend his naive position.  LOL.

>What the hell man? How can you even say something like that?

Lol, say something like the people of Colorado all got together to overturn 80 years of prohibition by agreeing to regulate marijuana like alcohol?  How about like this:  



"In 2012 during the general election the people of Colorado all got together to overturn 80 years of prohibition by agreeing to regulate marijuana like alcohol.  Amendment 64, a constitutional amendment to the Colorado constitution, was added by the governors signature earlier this year". -Viceroy

Just like that ^


Ignore away you cowards who know nothing of freedom and law and the beauty that is this great country.

Might be? He's already been added to my "ignored" list, and I'm sure he'll be on more and more as long as he keeps posting.

I was going to quit posting in this thread but this is just too much glaring bullshit:


What the hell man? How can you even say something like that? You have the whole thing backwards. Without regulation there is no way of making Marijuana unavailable to the masses. It was the government who made it a Schedule 1 drug (without proven medical benefits) contrary to expert opinion in the first place, remember? Or are you now saying that people can't even grow pot if the government doesn't help them out? I thought you were serious the whole time, now I suspect you might just be trolling...

I copied this from the previous page because if you are going to consider the above you should probably consider what I wrote, not just my reaction to an ill informed poster.


Further, without regulation, there is no way to make marijuana, a harmless plant, available to the masses as Colorado does: http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_23575299/colo-announces-rules-recreational-pot-sales

One thing I love about depression/recession debates is that whether or not they were caused by the government/market typically supports whoever is making a claim.

If any undecided readers are still reading this thread, I leave it to you to judge whether or not the USD market was self regulated during the depression, or if the housing market was self regulated in 2008.

Likewise, consider if gold-backed private currency regulation to date has increased or decreased the prevalence of gold-backed private currencies.

I think I see the problem of our misunderstanding now. You seem to be living in a sort of Utopia. I don't mean mental Utopia now. But you've managed to find yourself in a place, where it is possible to perceive policemen as honest, helpful people. This is the exception, rather than the rule. Sort of like when you get an honest politician or two every once in a while. Have you traveled around a bit and come into contact with law enforcement people in other places?

I haven't even brought up the point of how a hierarchical structure like the state attract people prone to corruption and once they're part of said system it tends to present them with incentives to get corrupted even further. Or the point about how information gets distorted as it makes its way up a hierarchical structure and how the people at the top end up basing their decisions (as well-intentioned as they may be) based on totally distorted information. But seeing as I have "made no point so far" I will refrain from elaborating. I think it's time we stopped making this thread into our personal trench warfare of opinions (because that's what I see developing. I don't see a discussion forming) and let other people comment on whether or not they wish Bitcoin to be regulated.

This is my last post on the subject matter, unless someone picks up a discussion.

In many places the police are thugs particularly in corrupt big cities.  But the policemen who live in my home town are not thugs, they are people just like me.  They are hired by the citizens to try to stop crime and detain criminals.  They do a fairly good job but the only people who would call them "thugs" are called "criminals" by the rest of society.  In fact I can think of three incidences in my state where corrupt police officers have been arrested and charged with crime by their fellow policemen.

You've made no point except that you wish to live in a fairy tale world.  Send me the address when you find it, won't you?



  

My point exactly! The police are the thugs.

I think we are done here, thank you for your time and opinions. You may continue to live in the real world, while I may continue to embrace my ignorance of what the real world is while remaining open to reinterpretation and reinvention.

I do admit that it's tempting to decide that you in fact do know what reality is and have it figured out. Must be cozy and comfortable.

You are quite conflicted:


"whatever organized band of thugs happen to be ruling that particular turf of land."

"There is only one real question here: Do you want to be free?"

You can never be free if you assume that every bit of earth is controlled by a band of thugs.  Is your neighborhood controlled by a band of thugs?  Mine is not, the police arrest the thugs around here.  But I'd hardly call this place utopia.

Your vision of utopia can only exist in fairy tales.  On earth we live in a place.  We are physical and so is our world (or we are just a dream in my head).

Might just be you're already living there. If you think of your government as having only your best interests in mind as well as the means to effectively satisfy them. Sounds more utopian than the wildest anarchist dream to me.

Besides, this is the internet, the 21st century and Bitcoin! Might be about time to start freeing ourselves from the medieval serf mentality tying us to a specific location and making us swear patriotic allegiance to whatever organized band of thugs happen to be ruling that particular turf of land.

There is only one real question here: Do you want to be free?

Dude, I'd LOVE to live in Utopia.  You just give me the address and I'll be there.


Read about the repeal of glass-steagle and how is caused the great depression.  Or read about how lack of regulation almost ended the great American experiment when the great depression arose.  Don't just spout, read the facts.  You are certainly smart enough to recognize that the repeal of glass-steagle (by lobbiest influenced lawmakers) directly resulted in the great recession.  

Glad to hear that we agree that the world is not black and white. In fact it is all Hodge and Podge!


You mentioned that law has been the sole factor preventing you from violent action at some point in time. Quite refreshing to hear this admission! I've heard many people stating that the law is only there to protect them from others, not others from them. After all, they are decent, intelligent human beings, it's those stupid evil masses...  

With that being said, would you consider alternative solutions to the problem of our neighborly coexistence? Right now our option is to submit to the existing rules and hope the government will enforce them honestly and effectively (quite a gamble I would say). How about we draft our own inter-neighbor constitution and hire someone to enforce it? Or maybe we hire a company specializing in this field? Or we might go full on crazy and try to talk over the fence every once in a while and try to live together peacefully? Or is that Utopia?

Besides all that there is another point to be made. If you look to authority to protect you from (any) threat, you slowly lose the ability to do so yourself. You become dependent on authority for the solution to your problem. Being dependent is a very vulnerable state to be in. Especially if the person/institution you're dependent on has incentive to abuse the situation. Does the government have such incentive? I guess that depends on how you view government. If you tend to look at it as a benevolent protector interested in protecting you and your interest you might think it's not that bad. But even then, you are still in a state of dependency and facing potential inability to protect yourself if for some reason your protector fails you. But maybe you tend more towards the view that government is a power structure and as such is interested in accumulating and preserving power (and by extension, wealth). In that case they have plenty of incentive for abusing your position of dependency.

This is a basic argument which can be applied to topics like gun control. Should guns be regulated or not? On the one hand you have the fear, that armed people are going to do stupid/evil things with those guns. On the other hand, take a situation like the Breivik disaster in Norway. Here you have a guy with an assault rifle on an island full of unarmed people. He ended up killing like a 100 of them. How many would he have been able to kill, if they were all armed?

That's the problem I see with "government as protector". First you lose your ability to defend yourself against others, but you tell yourself it's fine, because government will protect you. But once it fails to do so, what do you do? And how do you protect yourself against government?

This is all very complicated and I don't have any solution to it. Neither does Barrack Obama and his team of advisors. I feel such a complex issue should be thrown in the open and let everybody have their go at it with their solutions. It might lead to comical and disastrous results, but I suspect it would produce much better results than our current approach of one size fits all law.

Of course this is all easy to say for me, because an outlook like this requires to trust yourself to the chaos of life and not fear it. Nothing difficult for the Godess of Chaos


+1
This is why I don't see where people like Viceroy are coming from, when they claim that lack of regulation brought about a crisis. What lack of regulation? For the love of godess, I can't see any lack of regulation, it's rampant! It's akin to saying "free-market capitalism brought about the crisis". Regardless on my opinion on free-market capitalism I ask: what free market capitalism? Where?