9 ms·

If you believe those things, you should be asking for crypto to be outlawed, not disingenuously regulated for the underhanded purpos of outlawing it.

woodruffw 4y ago
You do understand that banning something is a form of regulation, correct? I don't know how much more explicit I can be with a phrase like "regulate into the dirt."
- datadata 4y ago
  Normally if the policy outcome you wish for is for X to be non-existent, then it would be more precise and explicit to say "we should ban X". The word regulate implies to some degree that we want X to exist, just in a way that is more constrained for better outcomes. Think about the mechanical meaning of the word regulate. To try to ban something under the guise of regulation makes it seem like you are wishing for a bad-faith effort to use regulation to make something fail rather than function.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I think I've been very precise. But if it isn't to your liking, here's another formulation: I believe that cryptocurrencies should be banned. But then again, what if what I mean by ban is a "partial ban." Opportunities for misinterpretation abound!
    - datadata 4y ago
      It is not misinterpretation, and the precision matters. For example, discourse on abortion that is favorable to abortion rights would not talk about the opposition "regulating" abortion, but only in terms of banning it. With crypto, it is clearly not politically favorable to have a complete ban, so to get an effective ban under the guise of regulation is basically hoping for authority to act in bad faith.
- chevill 4y ago
  > I don't know how much more explicit I can be with a phrase like "regulate into the dirt." "regulate it into the dirt" is commonly understood to mean the very real practice of placing so many restrictions/conditions on something that it becomes impractical to operate within the industry of whatever "it" is while explicitly not actually banning it outright. I tend to agree that there's no reason it should exist, but I'm open to the idea that maybe there's a worthy purpose out there that I'm missing.

woodruffw 4y ago

You do understand that banning something is a form of regulation, correct? I don't know how much more explicit I can be with a phrase like "regulate into the dirt."

datadata 4y ago
Normally if the policy outcome you wish for is for X to be non-existent, then it would be more precise and explicit to say "we should ban X". The word regulate implies to some degree that we want X to exist, just in a way that is more constrained for better outcomes. Think about the mechanical meaning of the word regulate. To try to ban something under the guise of regulation makes it seem like you are wishing for a bad-faith effort to use regulation to make something fail rather than function.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I think I've been very precise. But if it isn't to your liking, here's another formulation: I believe that cryptocurrencies should be banned. But then again, what if what I mean by ban is a "partial ban." Opportunities for misinterpretation abound!
  - datadata 4y ago
    It is not misinterpretation, and the precision matters. For example, discourse on abortion that is favorable to abortion rights would not talk about the opposition "regulating" abortion, but only in terms of banning it. With crypto, it is clearly not politically favorable to have a complete ban, so to get an effective ban under the guise of regulation is basically hoping for authority to act in bad faith.
chevill 4y ago
> I don't know how much more explicit I can be with a phrase like "regulate into the dirt." "regulate it into the dirt" is commonly understood to mean the very real practice of placing so many restrictions/conditions on something that it becomes impractical to operate within the industry of whatever "it" is while explicitly not actually banning it outright. I tend to agree that there's no reason it should exist, but I'm open to the idea that maybe there's a worthy purpose out there that I'm missing.