[nextlevelwizard]

Murder is also immoral.

Libra is hardly morally questionable. If you want a better comparison take (software) piracy.

Piracy is illegal and while I'm sure Steam, Spotify, and Netflix has reduced it a lot it is still thriving and many people break the law if not daily at least monthly.

Best thing you can do is to make a law that forces banks to prevent payments to known Libra sellers, but again if there is value in Libra this hardly makes a difference.

For one unless there is official list of every entity that sells them and they get instantly blocked you could just buy them before they get blocked. Secondly you could just use PayPal to transfer the money (first to your PayPal wallet and then to the seller), EU is not crazy enough to block PayPal without an alternative in sight.

Secondly take any gray-market on the Internet. On these markets you can already use a range of payment methods starting with freaking Starbucks Gift Cards to just plain old cash.

Yes, yes, just like most laws it will keep the honest people honest and we can assume that at least in the start that will be most of the population, but such a law would be so trivial to bypass that if there is any benefit of having some Libra people will have it and outside of completely breaking privacy of EU citizens there is nothing they can do about it.

[gjulianm]

Using Libra is morally questionable as you're giving away currency and economy control to a bunch of private entities motivated by profit and accountable to no one.

>Best thing you can do is to make a law that forces banks to prevent payments to known Libra sellers, but again if there is value in Libra this hardly makes a difference.

It does make a gigantic difference. They don't need to ban all of the Libra exchanges, just the big and knowledgeable ones, and go around banning anything that goes too big, so that people who want to retrieve EUR from Libra need to search a lot and comb through exchanges to see who's trustworthy. That makes using Libra a hassle, and if there's not a lot of adoption of Libra and it doesn't reach a critical mass, the currency becomes useless.

> if there is any benefit of having some Libra people will have it

That's a big if.

[nextlevelwizard]

>It does make a gigantic difference.

You skipped the part where I detail how underground markets already get past this. To reiterate here: banks can ban money transfers to the biggest exchange, but people can simply use PayPal, Bitcoin, Cash, or even gift cards to transfer the money.

Sure this will drop the most casual of users off, but again if there is value in Libra that hardly matters.

>That's a big if.

You need to realize that because someone is poking holes in what you believe doesn't mean they are completely against you. I have and probably will not advocate for anyone to use Libra. I have no Libra and I probably never will have any. I don't trade with any currency, I'm only interested in Bitcoin and other blockchain currencies as technology enthusiast.

I feel like people on the Internet often forget that the world isn't black and white. Just because I don't agree with one of your views doesn't mean I don't agree with the rest.

[freddie_mercury]

The US outlawed gold at one point. Holding gold is clearly not immoral. Yet almost everyone handed their gold over to the government.

[nextlevelwizard]

I fail to see relevancy here. If a physical good is made illegal to own and trade most people can not do anything about it. You'd have to smuggle the goods out of the country or find someone who is willing to take that risk. Most people simply do not have resources to do this.

With digital goods such restrictions aren't nearly as big of an issue. You can trade (semi-)anonymously with very little fear of getting caught. You can easily disguise your country of origin and even hold the money off shore, all of which would have required a lot of capital to setup with actual gold in the 1930s.

[lapnitnelav]

If murder is immoral, what are death penalty and soldiers killing other soldiers (when it's not civilians)?

Besides the context (and the legal aspect), they are the same act, homicide with intent. Their morality seem to be different depending who you ask.

And as for Libra being made illegal, I don't see what value it provides in EU to make it worth breaking the law.

[nextlevelwizard]

>If murder is immoral, what are death penalty and soldiers killing other soldiers (when it's not civilians)?

Death penalty is not moral. How you got this out of my message is beyond me.

Killing enemy soldiers to defend your life or land is justifiable. They are trying to destroy you. But I guess this is weird from American point of view (I'm just assuming since I don't think anywhere else has death penalty still in use and other countries haven't been involved in war in foreign countries for past two decades), but killing people who don't look like you in their own land because they are firing at you because you have invaded them is actually immoral in more ways than one.

[atq2119]

Many, probably most people would argue that the death penalty is immoral. Similarly, soldiers killing soldiers is generally seen as immoral unless it happens as part of a genuine war of defense. On both accounts you can twist the numbers using framing, but there's really no inconsistency here.

[pjc50]

It's Facebook. If we were talking about a privacy-conscious system, maybe, but it's guaranteed to be the opposite. Facebook wouldn't do something like this without tying it to the user's FB account.