What happens when the US makes crypto-currency illegal?

[acoindr]

@SEC agent - you do understand your George Washington quote offers a libertarian endorsement don't you? It's saying ordinary people should be involved in defending a free government.

Its more than that, it is your duty as a citizen to not only pay taxes to your government, but also to serve and defend it. 

Why is it anyone's duty, because some bureaucrat wrote is down on a piece of paper a few centuries ago?

I can only speak for myself but my duty is to uphold my own moral values and dignity, regardless of the personalities. I say getting on your knees to do your duties is rape and you are the victim, unless of course you enjoy it.

owenprescott, it appears you're from the U.K. You do realize you're commenting on an American political discussion.

[1714987664]

1714987664

[1714987664]

1714987664

[1714987664]

1714987664

[1714987664]

1714987664

[SEC agent]

the one thing all Americans should agree on is Constitutional rules are the ones which ultimately matter.

I agree with that, but would add the caveat that the Constitution is a living document, and the rules within changes and grows with our society.

[Loozik]

SEC agent,

Please don't be a pussy. I already publicly pledged you (in another thread) BTC 100 if you can demonstrate evidence supporting the facts you alleged.

Be a man and claim your reward  

[acoindr]

the one thing all Americans should agree on is Constitutional rules are the ones which ultimately matter.

I agree with that, but would add the caveat that the Constitution is a living document, and the rules within changes and grows with our society.

Nonsense. The rules don't change.

If they do then what's the use of having rules in the first place?

You abide by the rules, and if you need the rules to change there is a constitutional process for doing that called amending the Constitution. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Mageant]

I would like to know how they would actually do this.
IMHO an outright ban would be ineffective and just draw more attention to cryptocurrencies.

[TippingPoint]

the one thing all Americans should agree on is Constitutional rules are the ones which ultimately matter.

I agree with that, but would add the caveat that the Constitution is a living document, and the rules within changes and grows with our society.

"[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things.... "
Justice Antonin Scalia

[Hawker]

the one thing all Americans should agree on is Constitutional rules are the ones which ultimately matter.

I agree with that, but would add the caveat that the Constitution is a living document, and the rules within changes and grows with our society.

Nonsense. The rules don't change.

If they do then what's the use of having rules in the first place?

You abide by the rules, and if you need the rules to change there is a constitutional process for doing that called amending the Constitution. What's so hard to understand about that?

Interpretations change.  Segregation was unconstitutional in the 1870s, it was constitutional in the 1890s and then unconstitutional again in the 1950s.

[tvbcof]

...
Out if curiosity, what is it with libertarians and rape?  Everything they dislike is akin to rape.  

I've notice that about the term 'violence' as well.

My theory is that a Libertarian is an Anarchist who got picked on in school.  Perhaps they got goosed a lot.

[SEC agent]

Nonsense. The rules don't change.

Sure they do, that's why we have Constitutional Amendments.

[acoindr]

the one thing all Americans should agree on is Constitutional rules are the ones which ultimately matter.

I agree with that, but would add the caveat that the Constitution is a living document, and the rules within changes and grows with our society.

Nonsense. The rules don't change.

If they do then what's the use of having rules in the first place?

You abide by the rules, and if you need the rules to change there is a constitutional process for doing that called amending the Constitution. What's so hard to understand about that?

Interpretations change.  Segregation was unconstitutional in the 1870s, it was constitutional in the 1890s and then unconstitutional again in the 1950s.

That's why you use a constructionist reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

[acoindr]

Nonsense. The rules don't change.

Sure they do, that's why we have Constitutional Amendments.

That's what I said in my reply, but let me reword it for clarity:

The rules don't change except with Constitutional amendment.

[SEC agent]

That's what I said in my reply, but let me reword it for clarity:

The rules don't change except with Constitutional amendment.

Then we agree completely.

[acoindr]

That's what I said in my reply, but let me reword it for clarity:

The rules don't change except with Constitutional amendment.

Then we agree completely.

I'm not certain. As I mention above I also believe in a constructionist reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

[uMMcQxCWELNzkt]

...snip...

Why is it anyone's duty, because some bureaucrat wrote is down on a piece of paper a few centuries ago?

I can only speak for myself but my duty is to uphold my own moral values and dignity, regardless of the personalities. I say getting on your knees to do your duties is rape and you are the victim, unless of course you enjoy it.

'Duty' is a legal term - whatever your own beliefs its your duty to pay taxes and if you evade taxes, you eventually will end up in jail.  

Out of curiosity, what is it with libertarians and rape?  Everything they dislike is akin to rape.  

I used the term rape in reference to the posters statement of getting raped in prison. Also I am not a libertarian (assuming the sentence is directed towards me) lol.

[Hawker]

the one thing all Americans should agree on is Constitutional rules are the ones which ultimately matter.

I agree with that, but would add the caveat that the Constitution is a living document, and the rules within changes and grows with our society.

Nonsense. The rules don't change.

If they do then what's the use of having rules in the first place?

You abide by the rules, and if you need the rules to change there is a constitutional process for doing that called amending the Constitution. What's so hard to understand about that?

Interpretations change.  Segregation was unconstitutional in the 1870s, it was constitutional in the 1890s and then unconstitutional again in the 1950s.

That's why you use a constructionist reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

I agree.  But if the choice is between a bad law and a generous interpretation, judges often go for the generous interpretation. 

[acoindr]

I agree.  But if the choice is between a bad law and a generous interpretation, judges often go for the generous interpretation. 

I agree, but that's why you try to write laws clearly, and why it's up to citizens, as always, to have final oversight.

[jdbtracker]

Comrades, what would you say if someone build the constitution of a nation into a program? A program so effectively constructed that by merely using it you are agreeing to it's terms of use, any attempts at hacking it would merely be patched.

I'm going around the issue a little bit, but isn't Bitcoin a system akin to A Democracies Constitution?

We have a protocol, the Constitution, it is freely available as Open Source.
We engage in it's use every time we interact with each other.
If deprived of it's terms of use, there are others that can bridge the gap to repair the damage done.

so... are we noticing a network breach of protocol if they try to ban something that is a expression of ones freedom of expression? or is it a flaw in the protocol that allows you to say what you want... but not to do what you want. freedom of speech is not freedom of action.

[Biomech]

the one thing all Americans should agree on is Constitutional rules are the ones which ultimately matter.

I agree with that, but would add the caveat that the Constitution is a living document, and the rules within changes and grows with our society.

Again with the "living document" horseshit.

No. It. Is. Not.

It's at best a contract, and a contract CANNOT be unilaterally altered. It has within it provisions for making a change. Those provisions DELIBERATELY make it very difficult to change. You and your heroes in Washington have made a mockery of that. As Spooner said, If the constitution does not PREVENT the sort of government we have, OR if it ALLOWS the government we have, then it is unfit to exist.

If it can be changed by the will of the government, or ignored at their will, then it is, as GWB, just a goddamned piece of paper.

Jefferson was wrong. Evil is NOT necessary. Further, enshrining it as something sacred and giving it power and legitimacy is just plain stupid,

[SEC agent]

Again with the "living document" horseshit.

No. It. Is. Not.

It's at best a contract, and a contract CANNOT be unilaterally altered. It has within it provisions for making a change. Those provisions DELIBERATELY make it very difficult to change.

The constitution is difficult to change, but it can change (there have been 27 amendments), and those changes are a reflection of our societies views at that point in history.  

How exactly is that not a living document?

[TheDarKnight]

Surely it's not possible to ban them as it would be tantamount to banning the Internet. U.S.A. don't really control the world anymore hahahaha