[trutannus]

Except that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is:

1. Bad laws got us into this place

2. There's a lot of inertia in government

3. There's a lot of stake holders in government who don't have citizen's interests at heart

4. It's illogical to think you can, in light of this, just pass a law and fix it.

Yeah, we designed the law, and we know how it works. Sadly, we know also that the way it works is generally not how it should, and it has been co-opted often for the powerful.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

"the problem with corruption, inefficiency and stupidity in government is corruption, inefficienty and stupidity, not government"

[shkkmo]

And crypto isn't dominated by the wealthy and being used to serve their ends? Open your eyes my friend. There is far more corruption and disfunction in the average cryptocurrency org than the average government.

[trutannus]

Did I say that? I explicitly say in multiple places that I'm not advocating for crypto, just asking people to not put the blind trust into their government "just passing a law".

It always baffles me why someone can't say "I'm opposed to X" without another person coming along and saying "that means you're in favor of Y". Don't respond to what you think I said, respond to what I actually said.

[shkkmo]

You seem pretty focused on this idea of "blind trust" of the government which nobody is advocating. So perhaps you should take your own advice?

I didn't assume you supported crypto. I was pointing out that crypto has all the problems you specified as bad or worse.

[trutannus]

I'm not sure how the advice of "just pass a law" is anything other than blind trust. If you didn't think I was advocating crypto, then what purpose does:

> And crypto isn't dominated by the wealthy and being used to serve their ends? Open your eyes my friend

serve? Why would you mention something completely unrelated to their point, then tell them to open their eyes? To me it sounds like you're retroactively recasting your argument.

[shkkmo]

> "just pass a law"

If I search for that phrase you are quoting/referencing in this thread, you are the only one using it.

I explained what point I was making. Do you have anything to contribute beyond attacking your strawman over and over?

[trutannus]

> You make a law that everyone must be served by the banks. Easy.

Here is the "just pass a law" line. I've summarized a line that makes this exact point. I see no straw-men here. Can you point out where I make a straw-man? Genuinely interested in why you see this as creating a straw-man in my summary. I fail to see how else you can interpret other than 'just pass a law'.

[ModernMech]

I agree with your points 1-3 but I don't think your conclusion in 4 follows logically. It misses important historical context of where passing laws did in fact create more equitable access to important civic resources. Take for instance the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. You could have made the same argument you are making now to dissuade people from passing those laws.

[trutannus]

I definitely think laws can do what you say. But I think that's not always what happens. What I object to is really more specifically how the gist is "change the laws, its an easy fix". Anyone who spectates government (odd phrase, I know) will understand that this is very much not an easy fix.

[TomSwirly]

"The economic system isn't working well, so let's smash it, eliminate the ability of the government to tax people, and give almost all the world's money to a tiny number of anonymous people, 90%+ of whom are affluent white Libertarian males."

Honestly, this whole thing just makes me tremendously sad now.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Well let's face it, there's a widespread and popular political philosophy floating around (especially in the USA) which essentially boils down "the rich are not rich enough and the poor are too rich", so this proposal would fit right in with that !