[slver]

> So it's one rule for the government and another for the people.

Of course it is, otherwise it wouldn't be a government. People get really silly with this. Governments can define laws, enforce them and so on. They have many rules that apply to them and not to everyone else. That's the whole point.

[sushid]

The US also has done the exact same in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act

[drclau]

I agree with you on how governments often work. I can’t agree that’s the whole point, though. Why would it be? I’d be curious to understand why you think so.

[allie1]

The whole point is to enforce rules that benefit the whole, at the cost of individual benefit.

Say you have 100 rials or 1M. Converting it to BTC might be good for you individually if you believe the local currency is going to lose value, but it’s not good for the collective as there will now be less demand and more supply of it. So the individual benefits at the cost of the group. Stopping that is the gov’s job.

This is a general comment, I am not familiar with Iran as a country and might be missing context.

[leetcrew]

this is a really unconvincing example, at least to me. despite the name, bitcoin doesn't function much like a currency. that is to say, someone who would otherwise hold $1mm cash would probably not want to convert that to bitcoin, at least not for legal transactions. so if a meaningful amount of people would rather use BTC than fiat, the problem is not that people are allowed to buy BTC. the problem is that the government has failed spectacularly at issuing a stable currency, which is one of its main jobs.

[allie1]

It might not be a pertinent example for btc, it was just used as an example.

The US did something similar with gold - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act#:~:text=The....

The main point is, the govt has a mandate to take actions that benefit the whole, even at the cost of individuals.

Yes it will make mistakes, and yes it sometimes will be corrupt and abuse that mandate, but in those cases the country can appoint a different group of people to try and fix things, that’s its only option that addresses the problem and is not “benefiting the individual and harming the whole”.

[labawi]

Sometimes a foreign force will overthrow your elected government, because they want your oil, appoint a dictator instead and provide him with support in exchange for military interest. After decades, he is ousted, foreign relations are understandably sour and your neighbor decides to invade, so the powers provide support lest he be defeated and you are pronounced a country non-grata.

More to the point, it shouldn't be the or a country that appoints leaders. They should be appointed by the people, but for various reasons it has a rather poor success rate.