I think this case is a pretty clear example of why.
The regulators are supposed to be protecting who from what exactly? And at whose expense?
So far I've seen two lines of reasoning:
1) Regulators are needed to protect me from myself. I can't assess if these dog-coins have long-term investment potential or not, so I want the government in the loop somehow. If I can purchase something on the internet, I assume it's safe, or the government wouldn't let it be sold.
2) Regulators need to protect the government from the effects of money laundering. I must give up privacy for the greater good, as the money laundered by North Korean hackers will be used against my country. Giving up all privacy in exchange for a small reduction in the funding of our enemies is always a good trade.
Even if I buy one of these arguments wholeheartedly, the practical matter is that we're trying to prevent math from being done here, and it's just not going to work. It's sort of like preventing piracy.
But public sentiment has become very anti-crypto, so I suspect we'll land in a war-on-drugs type situation where the crypto never really goes away and you can still transact it anonymously, but we mostly just don't talk about it except for the occasional bust to ensure more enforcement budget next year.
The governments are protecting their tax revenue (obviously), the illusion of free market(and it's obviously fully informed agents), and less obviously public order.
What was Abe's killer motivation? A cult brainwashed his mother into giving all her money and pension to them. Abe was one of the most public and prominent supporter of this cult amongst japanese officials. He killed him.
Do you think that can happen in the US? I mean, i know that while AR-15 are authorized, most sniper rifles aren't (which makes it very clear what's the NRA is really about), but you have hunting rifles with a great range and cheap, really good optics nowadays. If the scam industry aimed towards young isolated (but with wealthy enough parents) middle class kids keep up, if one of them snap and instead of a school shooting choose to kill bitboy or any other rugpuller, what happens?
He won't be as vilified as Abe's killer from the start. Now looks what's happening in Japan with the killer and Abe's reputation. Do you think that kind of mood can encourage copycats, especially if we enter a small depression?
The influencer+scam industry, in an economically constrained period, can lead to an evolution of our belief system, from the liberal 'i get what i deserve, mostly' to the fascist 'if I'm not as (good/well of/...) as I can be, it's because of this outgroup, and particularly him'. Both are fondamental attribution error fallacy, but one is really, really more violent than the other.
> The influencer+scam industry, in an economically constrained period, can lead to an evolution of our belief system, from the liberal 'i get what i deserve, mostly' to the fascist 'if I'm not as (good/well of/...) as I can be, it's because of this outgroup, and particularly him'. Both are fondamental attribution error fallacy, but one is really, really more violent than the other.
A heckler's veto, even a potentially fatal one, isn't an acceptable reason to curtail rights. In justifying such bad reasoning on the grounds of the violence that may ensue, you're arguing that one must preemptively surrender to terrorism.
You're also making an error of you're own: a slippery slope. By what method would this liberal society you speak of descend into fascism? And why a fascist state? Why not an monarchial empire? Mass violence isn't particularly limited to any one kind of government.
I'm not talking about the state, this isn't one of my fear right now. I'm saying that our current belief system is mostly liberal, where we attribute success and failure more to ourselves rather than luck, to the system we live in, or to the outgroup.
This is sort of a 'leftward' evolution of the old monarchist belief system where your success is based on your bloodline, whereas the 'rightward' evolution is fascism, where your failure are because the outgroup is cheating, empowered by traitors in your ingroup (thus all methods to reinforce your ingroup are good).
I'm afraid than right now, our belief system (i call it belief system, but the author i stole it from talked about the foundational myth of our ideologies) is shifting from one to the other.
And btw, i just realized that this can be misinterpreted (it's also the first time I've presented the thought like this), but I'm sure I've done this political commentary way before 2021, as I've found this definition in 2018.
Reply to the heckler veto and terrorism: no, that should not be acceptable, and yes, this is like surrendering to terrorism.
First, it's not the main cause.
Second, the main job of the government is to ensure stable society. I'm pretty sure the consensus on crypto isn't 'lets make everything more stable', rather the opposite. I'm not saying that they're right, and in an utopia without bad actors, they would be absolutely wrong. It's more complicated than that though.
It's far from clear to me why on earth crypto should be free from regulation at all.