^ I assume this is how supporters of such laws think about the issue.
Would you dispute that even (otherwise) smart people can and do get taken in by dodgy financial schemes?
Regulations are there for good reasons...
If people really don't want the responsibility of freedom we can bring back indentured servitude, where people sign away their rights.
I suppose we should drop all laws about fraud really, why should we ban people from freely transacting with "microsoft" support services who just want to help them with their computer?
>> an securities sale that doesn't ask them for their ID, and thus doesn't meet securities regulations
Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and regulated, is needed.
I know, this circumscribes some of the allure of the whole area - that it's free of regulation, that it democratises finance etc etc. But like other avenues in life, perhaps we are being shown why the regulations exists in meatspace in the first place.
BTW I'm not trying to argue that all regulations and government actions are correct and useful, I'm very sympathetic to the idea that we are over-governed and over-regulated, in lots of ways. But perhaps not here.
>>Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and regulated, is needed.
I don't believe we should be limiting other people's right to privacy and to exchange digital tokens (not guns or tanks) under any circumstance.
I think accepting the right of society to impose these limitations on individuals is accepting servility for everyone, and I find that enormously dangerous and harmful.
And no, we don't relate on that, and we disagree that the effect is limited to the individual (see "the Great Depression, causes of") or that the individual should have to bear all risk of their actions at all times. Fundamentally I suspect we disagree on what sort of society we want to live in.
We also disagree on the economic causes of events like the Great Depression.
Also I did mention we could bring back an option to voluntarily cede one's own freedom, for those that don't want to bear the responsibility of living with the consequences of their own bad decisions, so I don't think our disagreement is exactly how you've characterised it. It's more like we disagree on whether we should prevent people from having the option to live freely.
Is BSD more free because it places no restrictions, or is the GPL more free because it guarantees freedom to those further on in the chain?
I'm not going to attempt an answer because it's the stuff of decades of internet flamewars. Similarly I don't think that libertarian freedoms are necessarily the only definitions, particularly as they seem to enshrine ownership of land and property as absolute, which come at a cost to the freedoms of others to make use of land or possessions. (I'm not looking for a debate on why that may or may not be right or wrong, simply to establish that what makes someone or something the most free is not 100% clear cut)
So no, we can't really agree on a definition of free or freely.
I don't feel this discussion can proceed constructively anymore.
free·dom
ˈfrēdəm/
noun
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
"we do have some freedom of choice"This whole discussion would be much easier with an example.
I have spent quite a lot of time debating cryptocurrencies with people and explaining why they could be useful. But with ICOs I find myself on the other side of the fence. I have yet to find a white paper that isn't either useless or impossible.
> and thus doesn't meet securities regulations
In this context "doesn't meet regulations" more often than not means "we lie about what we will use the money for". I'm not sure that's a good idea.
It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time.
>I'm not sure that's a good idea.
But if someone thinks it's a good idea, we should forcibly deny them the right to invest their own money in it? I simply don't understand the justification for such a strong-arming intrusion.
>It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time.
Reputation is a very real and powerful thing in the marketplace. In the long run scammers and other unscrupulous types cannot compete against honest providers who deliver. And by the way, I'm fine with going after confirmed scammers. I'm not okay with centralizing/banning an industry to preemptively prevent scams.
>>It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time.
And making the point that the space will be dominated by the competent and honest in the long run if left to its own devices.
My comment was explaining why I believe that would be the long-term outcome.
Thanks for the link though, that was an interesting read. I was aware that "Caveat Emptor" was a bit of a libertarian tenet, and that people like to rely on things like reputation to enforce good trading practice, but that is an interesting explanation of why a libertarian may be against any and all government interference in even blatant fraud.
For instance, a law against DUIs make sense, it's so you don't kill people. A law requiring seat belt wearing - not so much.