[dvt]

> What is the crime here?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/securities_act_of_1933

But you bring up great points, and that's exactly why we use a political system called a "representative democracy" where if you don't like the laws, you can vote for those that align with your worldview, you can run for office yourself, or you can lobby your politicians to change them.

(Breaking the law is unfortunately not on that list.)

[Kretinsky]

Thinking that the federal state, in the USA, is a representative democracy is delusional. It's an oligarchy, where power is shared between different interests coalition, such as the war industry, the financial sector, the ruling families, and so on.

"Vote for those who align your worldviews" in a bipartisan political system is laughable, same as "lobbying". JPMorgan can indeed lobby to protect its interests, regular citizens can't, or have to waste an amount of energy so high, for results so meaningless while doing it that it's useless in the end. Hence, the real citizens are the ones who have access to the system, be them corporations or oligarchs.

But to go back to the original argument, what's the problem here? All of this is virtual and doesn't affect the real world. Unlike the US banking system that needs taxpayer's money to bail itself out every 15 years like clockwork, the crypto space lives on its own.

Truth is, this crackdown is quite beneficial to the ecosystem, as all devs are leaving the US, or will have to. In the end we'll have a much more balanced tech sector, unlike now where the USA imposes its cultural norms and practices on the rest of the world.

[sneak]

No. The laws don't expire; we are mostly ruled by laws that we were not in any way represented for.

Everyone who was of voting age who could have voted for senators who ratified the income tax amendment is dead now. There is no person now living under the sixteenth amendment that was involved in its passage.

None of us alive today were voting for congressional reps back in '33; correspondingly the securities act applying to us is not in any way related to representative democracy. It might as well be dictatorial edict for all of our involvement.

[dvt]

Are you trying to argue that, under your proposed system of laws, we would need to re-litigate (for example) murder or arson for every new generation? Seems a bit silly. Either way, precedent can be freely overturned, so the Securities Act isn't immutable. It's just that most people still think it's a good idea.

[sneak]

Most people aren't aware of securities regulation at all.

Note that I didn't propose any alternate system, I just pointed out that the majority of the laws we live under were not a result of our being represented in any way.

[johngladtj]

Yes, all laws should have expiration dates built in, and the more controversial the law is the shorter that expiration should be.

A law passed 51-49 should not persist after that legislative period has passed.

A law passed 100-0 may be reasonable to persist for 50 years.

[alphanullmeric]

Should an individual be allowed to choose the risks they want to take with their own money? Yes or no. “But we voted for it” doesn’t change the fact that I don’t consent to something on the basis that enough people disagree with me.