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.
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?!
