|
|
|
|
|
|
by mikeash
4764 days ago
|
|
|
That's a fantasy. Here in reality, if you're operating a commercial enterprise, the way you operate depends greatly on what kind of item you sell. For example: 1. Hard liquor not for consumption on site: illegal to sell in Virginia, only the state can. 2. Firearms: highly regulated. 3. Food: must meet health department regulations. 4. Computer parts: fairly open, must still meet basic business licensing requirements, collect sales tax, etc. You can talk about how things ought to be all you want, but all that matters here is how things are, and how things are appears to be that this Bitcoin operation falls under a certain category of law with which they are not compliant. The law is not written with Bitcoin in mind at all, so conspiracy theories about governments specifically targeting Bitcoin do not appear to have any basis. |
|
|
What I don't agree is when people use made up definitions with straight face within a rational argument. It's not that you are wrong, it's that arguments like yours implicitly justify certain things as objective (e.g. differences between money and not-money).
In other words, Bitcoin services are being regulated not because Bitcoin is (or not) money, but because there are people with guns who want to control certain things in certain ways and use made-up definitions to justify their actions. When you use their definitions you just add up to global confusion and hide their lies.
And I'm not saying how things ought to be, I'm not suggesting what's good or bad. I'm saying that without honest clear terms we cannot easily decide for ourselves what's good or bad. Maybe it's good for someone to be controlled by people with guns. I just want to point out that there are guns and many people are afraid of them.