On: What Happens to Stocks and Cryptocurrencies When t...

[insert_coin]

> I disagree with this. Fools have a hard enough life without permitting predators to take their money. Nobody chooses to be a fool.

And yet, it will always happen. Some of us are fools, some of us will be fools, and some of us will never know how much of a fool we really were. Those will be the lucky ones.

Nature works this way for a reason.

Misguided compassion is a big part of why we are even having this discussion in the first place: people wanting to help wholeheartedly without realizing they are being fools themselves.

Were our previous best intentions not good enough? or maybe were they the cause of it all? Who can tell, who can tell...

[licebmi__at__ → insert_coin]

People will always be mugged by thugs who are stronger than them, so let’s get rid of all assault laws and shrug because nothing can be done right?

[insert_coin → licebmi__at__]

Don't be silly, that would be foolish!

In fact, perhaps a law that prohibits you to get mugged in the first place is in order.

[inteoryx → insert_coin]

In this analogy I think that a law against is mugging is analogous to a law against financial scams like dogecoin. Of course the existence of the law won't prevent anyone from getting scammed or mugged, but it may reduce the frequency with which people get scammed or mugged, and it may reduce the incentive to scam or mug by introducing the threat of punishment for scammers/muggers.

[insert_coin → inteoryx]

No, I got it, as sophisticated as it was. But my analogy is this:

A law against fraud is like a law against mugging, you cannot commit fraud and you cannot mug. Both pretty clear and reasonable. But a law against trading because you might get scammed is like a law against getting mugged: YOU ARE NOW FORBIDDEN TO GET MUGGED, problem solved!

Of course people, because they are good hearted and their intentions are so pure, often fail to see the difference. After all, how can anyone be against a law prohibiting mugging?!