Quote from: Spoetnik on March 27, 2014, 06:31:17 AM

So if you all say there should be no rules then i have no choice but to assume you agree with molesting little children or raping women or or or..

Seriously? OK, let's start at the beginning...

One (and many people would say the only) legitimate purpose of government is to protect freedom. Rape victims do not choose to be raped. Molested children do not choose to be molested. Their rights -- their freedom -- is being taken away. That is why there are laws against those things, and why those laws are a legitimate function of government.

Now, Spoetnik, how much have you been forced to invest in scam coins? Zero. No one is forcing you -- no one is forcing anyone -- to invest in these coins. The investors are exercising their freedom of choice.

You want to take that freedom away.

Normally, the counter argument is that the authoritarians just want to "protect" the people from themselves. The authoritarians are elitists who see themselves as superior to the masses, so they should be the ones deciding who deserves which freedom.

And in some cases, they actually believe they are serving the public good.

So what's the problem with that, if they actually are the experts in the market, and if they are trying to serve the public good? Well, look back to the central tenant of capitalism: People act in their own self-interest.

The "review committee," in this case, will make decisions based on what is best for them personally. This can't be solved by finding "good" people. It's not a character defect. It's simply human nature. "Where you stand depends on where you sit." Our point of view on any issue is ALWAYS colored by self-interest, even when we truly do not believe this is the case.

Politically, the elegant solution that the framers of the US Constitution came up with is to recognize that self-interest is going to be central to every decision and to pit interests against each other set up a system of checks and balances and oversight to protect the rights of the minority.

But how are you possibly going to have any oversight in a situation like this forum? It's not going to happen. Oversight of the decision-making committee is not part of the proposal, and even if it were, it would be cumbersome, expensive, and very likely completely ineffective. No one is going to be on the committee if it means they are subject to financial review. But how else are you going to catch members cheating the system? So the effects of self-interest are magnified. For example, the people on this committee will receive lots of bribe offers. What makes you think that they won't take them? Blind trust?

Economically, Adam Smith postulated that the "invisible hand" of the market arises from competing self-interest. "The theory for the Invisible Hand states that if each consumer is allowed to choose freely what to buy and each producer is allowed to choose freely what to sell and how to produce it, the market will settle on a product distribution and prices that are beneficial to all the individual members of a community, and hence to the community as a whole."

So what you are proposing is taking away freedom of the many for the benefit of a chosen few. Is it any wonder that people aren't eager to go along with your plan?

woetohice

Posts

Merits