>>Much like SC stuff, I'll enjoy watching folks blather this kind of stuff in front of a judge at some point.
I don't understand why people get joy out of seeing someone punished for a victimless crime.
Criminalizing entire categories of economic exchange, based on sweeping and prejudicial generalizations that they're all scams, is the preemptive approach to crime that makes for a more repressed society with greater wealth inequality.
Where did he mention tax avoidance? My interpretation of the parent is he’s saying many violations of securities laws are otherwise harmless. Nobody needs to be defrauded for a violation to occur. All parties on both sides of an investment could willingly consent to take part, and everyone involved could be happy, yet the SEC or CFTC could still punish everyone.
I’m not arguing in favor of either side with this comment, just looking to clear up some apparent confusion on what the parent comment stated.
We could certainly have a discussion about taxation and my views on it, but I'd rather discuss a more clear cut subject.
That subject is someone being prosecuted under criminal law for offering a security to another consenting adult without having met the mandated requirement of having that security approved by the ordained regulatory agency.
Edit: responding to below:
>>why you might also believe that securities frauds are victimless.
It's not "securities fraud" though. No fraud need happen for someone to be prosecuted under criminal law for offering a security to the public.
The fact that you label all securities offerings without government approval "fraud" supports my earlier point that your position is "based on sweeping and prejudicial generalizations that they're all scams".
Very, very few places are outright criminalizing it. They're just saying, "This is philosophically and mechanically no different than what already exists, so there's no reason why you shouldn't be following the existing laws."
That's not true. Offering to the public equity that hasn't received approval from the centralized gatekeeper is mislabelled "securities fraud" and is a criminal offence.
The term "securities fraud" as defined by securities law statutes is political-speak, and very misleading.
Fraud involves deceiving the counterparty in the exchange. But "securities fraud" need not involve deception. It can be completely non-fraudulent. The term is therefore an Orwellian misnomer to give the public the appearance of a victim.
I don't see anything there that contradicts my point, which is that a lot of this crypto stuff is no different than what has come before, so there's no reason why it shouldn't be following the same regulations.
As for why those regulations exist, you can look back in history to see why those regulations were initially enacted (lots of fraud in the securities space), or just look at the more recent history of crypto activity, and see many instances where they tried doing the same things, and those that were duped by the scams found out why those regulations exist in the first place.
"Very, very few places are outright criminalizing it."
But securities laws DO outright criminalize victimless behaviour.
>>As for why those regulations exist, you can look back in history to see why those regulations were initially enacted (lots of fraud in the securities space)
There is no justification for criminalizing consensual economic exchange. Doing so in the name of preempting crime is a case of guilt by association, and collective punishment, against all the innocent parties who take part in this kind of activity.
As for the consequentialist justification: the result of accepting the principle of paternalistic restrictions on voluntary exchange is current securities laws, and they are totally dysfunctional.
It costs $6 million to do an IPO. This excludes 99% of the population from being able to directly access the public capital markets.
And then we try to deal with the symptoms of this unequal economic access with welfare and other forcible income redistribution schemes.
The real solution is to return to a free society where we don't create structural barriers to economic participation.
>>or just look at the more recent history of crypto activity,
I see a lot of innovative projects being funded. I see rapid innovation that has totally transformed distributed consensus technology over the last five years.
We have major problems in our world that cause over 50 million deaths a year.
We need to be willing to take risks and deal with the inconveniences and volatility of freedom to solve these problems.
There is no path in front of us that doesn't involve risk. Either the risk associated with our current problems, or the risks associated with experimentation/innovation in trying to solve those problems.
That's the reality that society has to face in order to make an informed decision on which path to take.
I don't understand why people get joy out of seeing someone punished for a victimless crime.
Criminalizing entire categories of economic exchange, based on sweeping and prejudicial generalizations that they're all scams, is the preemptive approach to crime that makes for a more repressed society with greater wealth inequality.