Not to argue, but it really strange how the things that my generation valued (e.g. individual freedom) are being overturned. The old axiom "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." was a mantra in my younger days.
Interestingly, the old axiom has a different meaning than what people think. It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security [1].
"He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it."[1]
> it really strange how the things that my generation valued (e.g. individual freedom) are being overturned
It's interesting for me as well. In the US, when I was younger, I always perceived "individual freedom" as a fundamental element of the right. It's only now as I get older that I see that's not really the case (at least, not anymore). That it seems as if the left has taken on that role of championing individual rights over that of the state.
I think in the context of crypto, I think it's a fine balance of freedom versus regulation, which is why it's taken so long to get anywhere with it.
Honestly, I think a large part of the reason it hasn't really been touched much is the feds ability to crack down on criminals despite using crypto. The belief that it's anonymous and untraceable makes it seem like at some level, it's easier to track people down. And in a circle of criminals, you only need to break the weakest link.
There has always been a tension between individual freedoms and societal good, it has not been clear cut for any generation in American history.
As an example, 1933 is the origin of the Accredited Investor rule in the US which directly interferes with commerce between two consenting adults in order to reduce societal fraud and risk. You can find similar laws from any decade you care to mention.
Well said. There certainly has to be some oversight because there will be predators who take advantage of others. I am not even sure how to handle cryptocurrency, but I do know money runs this world and the powers that be do not want to let go of that power and nor have the inability to tax and control the flow of money. With that said, it is fairly obvious the core elements of freedom are not thought of in the same way as when I was young. For example, I never thought freedom of speech would be diminished as rapidly as it has.
and yet we gave up the liberty to allow citizens to own rocket launchers. we gave up the liberty to allow people to say "buy my elixir, it cures cancer".
The proper answer is not "absolute unrestrained freedom", nor is it "absolute safety at all costs". We have to find a balance between the two- one that lets people live their lives in the way that they choose, but protects them from predators (or just grossly irresponsible actors).
Just because the needle is moving, does not mean it's a corruption of some magical ideal. It's just a sign of shifting consensus.
