trutannus

> seems way easier than just deciding to solve it with crypto

Yeah, I don't disagree that crypto won't fix this. I just disagreed that it was "easy". I took them as being literal.

I thought it was a fair summary, but I can also see how someone would arrive at your conclusion. I read it as minimizing, but you make a fair point.

You dilute the meaning of the word at that point. Weapons are specific tools that are used with intent to cause harm. If something happens to cause harm without intent, and you define it as a weapon, the word becomes useless.

> You make a law that everyone must be served by the banks. Easy.

This is the one I'm specifically discussing, its from a different user. This is the line that started the thread. Plenty of users are discussing this specific line I believe.

> That's a pretty American, libertarian take.

I'm not American. This take tends to come out of countries where the government has strayed away from its objective of serving the people. There are plenty of governments I'd trust, and not hold a libertarian view towards. Funny enough, most of these are European governments, so your point is well taken. That said, using the state to solve this problem isn't universally going to work. I bet Nordic nations could pull it off, if they've not already.

In short: if the government doesn't work for the people, and is structurally broken, I hold a libertarian perspective. If I see a government that works for the people, I lean neoliberal.

The initial discussion started with someone saying something to the effect of "just change the law, easy". To me, that reads as "just use the government, it'll be fine". Perhaps it's just me, but that sounds a lot like blind trust in an institute.

I definitely think laws can do what you say. But I think that's not always what happens. What I object to is really more specifically how the gist is "change the laws, its an easy fix". Anyone who spectates government (odd phrase, I know) will understand that this is very much not an easy fix.

> You make a law that everyone must be served by the banks. Easy.

Here is the "just pass a law" line. I've summarized a line that makes this exact point. I see no straw-men here. Can you point out where I make a straw-man? Genuinely interested in why you see this as creating a straw-man in my summary. I fail to see how else you can interpret other than 'just pass a law'.

Sotheby's is already selling them. That to me indicates they're here to stay, for better or for worse.

Right, but you're taking my comment out of context here. The point I'm making is that dismissing Crypto for this reason makes little sense.

I'd agree that a rotten shark in a tank has more substance to it than an NFT. Shame it's in embalming fluid. You could eat it if you fall on hard times otherwise.

I'm not sure how the advice of "just pass a law" is anything other than blind trust. If you didn't think I was advocating crypto, then what purpose does:

> And crypto isn't dominated by the wealthy and being used to serve their ends? Open your eyes my friend

serve? Why would you mention something completely unrelated to their point, then tell them to open their eyes? To me it sounds like you're retroactively recasting your argument.

Did I say that? I explicitly say in multiple places that I'm not advocating for crypto, just asking people to not put the blind trust into their government "just passing a law".

It always baffles me why someone can't say "I'm opposed to X" without another person coming along and saying "that means you're in favor of Y". Don't respond to what you think I said, respond to what I actually said.