Was I not clear enough? I don't care what you do as long as you aren't running an exchange. Even if you were, I'm only concerned if there's a trail of fraud leading to your exchange.
Seeing as how you've never expressed such an opinion, but only the opinion that there should be regulation (above and beyond the "don't defraud people" which is a natural crime), I'd say no, you haven't been clear enough. If you only want to punish those who have defrauded people, then we agree. But that hasn't been your tune, ever, in any of these threads.
No I am not the aggressor. In fact, I agree with you. I don't care what anyone else does until it starts to me affect me. You wanna trade crypto with someone, no problem. You wanna smoke some weed in your basement, no problem. You wanna come in my house and take my stuff so you can buy weed, we have a problem.
All I am trying to say is, the USA has a government, and laws. By you living here, you consent to follow them or not - we'll touch on that in a minute. US laws are not genders. They aren't defined by what you feel like that day.
Everyone on Earth has the right to pursue happiness. However, all land right now is controlled by some Country. And to quote a great movie: 'Borders are real and the plants you brought over them are illegal.'
This gives every human three choices and each one comes with their own conveniences and problems:
- You live in a country and follow the rules while you peacefully try to make change.
- You move to a country that has laws that favor your views and continue with #1.
- You choose to ignore laws and do what you want, when you want, and where you want. The big drawback of this is that you will find yourself in trouble with whatever occupying force you decided to homestead with. You expect conflict and problems in all of your dealings.
This has now completely left the topic of Crypto.
You're missing my point. "Borders are real and the plants you brought over them are illegal." Ok... let's go with that premise. It's a good analog for the crypto discussion. The point that you're missing is not whether it's illegal or not. Obviously that plant is, indeed, illegal. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that governments have no authority to make such a law unless I have harmed someone else with that plant. "That plant is illegal" is not an argument to that... it's an even more ridiculous version of circular reasoning, and it's failing to even comprehend the discussion. As you seem like a sufficiently smart person, I'm going to assume that's not the case, and I just haven't made myself clear enough.... So to put it shortly again, you have made no argument against what I've said, by asserting that it's illegal. We all know it's illegal. My point is that such a law is illegitimate from a standpoint of consent. There is no consent involved here. Sure, I can choose one of the three options you give me, but the point is that I have not consented to this list of options. We made no contract. We made no agreement. I never signed anything, verbally or with a pen. You are FORCING these options upon me. And if I don't agree with any of them, you'll give me imprisonment or death. You giving me choices does NOT equal me consenting. That's not how consent works.
Picture this... we work together. One day, Bill walk in the office and says
"Hey Mo, a bunch of us at the office got together, and we're all gonna pitch in every Friday for Sushi and Mustard sandwiches. A majority agreed, so be sure to have your cut ready."
"I don't like sushi and mustard sandwiches, I'm out. I wasn't a part of this. I'm not going to stop you from getting them yourselves, but I don't want any part of it."
"Nah we all voted. Since you work here, you have to pay up."
"I didn't vote"
"Then you have no right to complain!"
Does that describe consent to you? If so, you don't understand consent, plain and simple.
The bottom line is, the only reason the US government's authority over plants, or crypto, is legitimate is because of the threat of violence. Not based on principle. Your choice #3 illustrates that perfectly. You're proving my point with that one. #3 is literally a threat of violence, veiled as it may be. And if the alternative is violence, then there is not consent, ever. I understand that this is reality, and those are the choices that must be made. But to continue to *advocate* for such a violence-based system is, as I said earlier, trash. Then again, apparently many here enjoy the taste of boot leather.