[heleninboodler]

> There is absolutely no "intrusion" to speak of here.

Well, there is, actually. I think it's a bit histrionic to worry about it, but we definitely have intruded on Joe's freedom to buy and sell cats. Maybe he's into cat arbitrage. Maybe he makes them himself. Maybe he's got a lot of cars he doesn't need to drive and is strapped for cash. The point of the sticklers for freedom here is that regular citizens shouldn't need an explanation for why they're buying or selling a particular thing to another private party, and therefore tracking the fact that they did is an intrusion.

It's not technically wrong. It's an intrusion. It just happens to be an intrusion I think is reasonable.

[tpxl]

> but we definitely have intruded on Joe's freedom to buy and sell cats

No we haven't. Joe is free to resell converters, provided he proves he obtained them legally, which is trivial _if_ you obtained them legally.

[heleninboodler]

> Joe is free to resell converters, provided ...

... an increased burden over private sales of other goods (and over existing standards for sales of catalytic converters), which quite literally constitutes an "intrusion."

[Test0129]

There is quite literally a difference between selling a cat to your friend and selling it to a business that makes money liquidating cats (this sentence is actually humorous if you dont know what cat is short for...).

I have no interest in stopping Joe from selling to Bob, or going on craigslist and selling his wares if he, for some reason, has figured out a way to manufacturer with rare earth metals in his garage. Though I think this is a bit of a stretch of the normal argument. First, because catalytic converters are exceedingly hard to create. Second, because the profit is not in arbitrage but rather theft. Making a catalytic converter is very expensive. There are only a dozen or so companies with the infrastructure to make them at a scale that is profitable. Hence, if we could magically wish away cat theft it would not be remotely profitable to do some kind of rare earth arbitrage by the books. So, ipso facto, it is a good place to enforce at the very least a minimum amount of KYC with associated punishments when third party sales to businesses who do this sort of thing is involved.

I understand the arguments from the other side are the same arguments made for the KYC surrounding the $10,000 withdrawal limit to "stop drug money". I disagree with that kind of KYC. When in 99% cases they are ill gotten gains there must be something done because the alternative is foisting the cost ($300-$XXXX dollars) onto the innocent and throwing your hands up. Worse yet, it's not a one time cost and these criminals, undeterred, will simply return to steal the new one as well. This is no way to treat law abiding citizens.

[tpxl]

> Worse yet, it's not a one time cost and these criminals, undeterred, will simply return to steal the new one as well.

(Some?) modern catalytic converters have much less rare earth minerals, making them less (not?) profitable to steal.

> this sentence is actually humorous if you dont know what cat is short for...

Your parent comment had me thinking you were making a weird cat analogy until the cutting part.

[prvit]

Oh, so now Joe is guilty until proven innocent? Nice!

[tpxl]

Laws requiring you to provide paperwork don't make you guilty until proven innocent. And there are a lot of laws like that (filing your tax return anyone?).

[from]

How's the fugitive life going?