ferdo

That the SEC has a relatively small and new target in their sites while letting the larger and far older targets skate is all the argument I need.

No, you missed the point.

The overarching power of government is the problem, not how we discuss it on the net.

Or perhaps it's indicative of the many abuses of authority that emanate from government?

Once government claims and exercises powers, be they legitimate or not, it's pretty much impossible to get government to scale back. History is a good guide as to the eventual fate of governments and nations that allow arbritary power to expand without limits.

Generation to generation, the natural tendency of a relative minority is to seek and maintain influence over the many. This is reflected in the continued advance of the power of the State over the rights and liberties of its citizens. Unlike our own political vocabulary, The Greeks had terms for this particular dynamic: hoi polloi and hoi oligoi.

> You can, of course, make the argument that, power aside, the government should not use its enumerated powers in the way in question and should instead act as it did in the past case

My larger argument is more fundamental. If power is asserted over rights often enough, there will be few, if any, actual rights left.

When government loses consent of the governed, it no longer has authority to govern. That won't stop those that believe themselves fit to rule from ruling if they have the power to do so.

As I had to explain the difference between lunch and arbitrary use of government power, do I also have to explain the difference between government of consent and tyranny?

It certainly calls the intentions of the SEC into question.

> this is about punishing fraud in selling investments

Were that true, the principals of Goldman Sachs would be in jail.

"There are all kinds of devices invented for the protection and preservation of countries: defensive barriers, forts, trenches, and the like…But prudent minds have as a natural gift one safeguard which is the common possession of all, and this applies especially to the dealings of democracies.

What is this safeguard? Skepticism.

This you must preserve. This you must retain. If you can keep this, you need fear no harm."

Demosthenes, 4th century BC

I shouldn't need to to explain this to you, but there's a vast difference between what you choose for lunch and how a government exercises arbitrary power.

It strikes many, me included, as an overreach of executive power.

This isn't Congress doing the "regulating". It's the Executive Branch.

> Had those currencies become significant and used in interstate commerce

They were. The government's reaction to the popularity of the Bechtler coins was to open two mints in North Carolina, not to "regulate" Bechtler's coins.

The US government claiming power over the currency its banking corporation issues is one thing. I don't know why people just accept, without question, the claim that the government has regulating authority over a currency that it doesn't issue.

> On the whole, it seems like Bitcoin-enthusiasts would be far safer in a more regulated environment.

Speaking as a longtime Bitcoin user, I'd disagree. My bitcoins were easier to trade before the government started taking Bitcoin seriously. They were also safer before the government declared the power to confiscate bitcoins.

There were many private currencies in the 19th century that the government never claimed power over. Here's one example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Bechtler#The_Bechtl...

This move with regard to Bitcoin is merely Bank.Gov trying to protect its monopoly on the issuing of currency.

> We should not trust government, as a general rule.

100% agreement. Just as a personal operating default, I also tend to distrust people that tell me I should put more trust in government. Trust belongs in society and business, not in politicians and bureaucrats.

BTW, I sent you some btc once upon a time. I love your site/service.

Can...not...resist....

"It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept."

-Calvin and Hobbes

I've never trusted the government or the internet. I trust my family and friends.

"...the three aims of the tyrant. These are, (1) the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; (2) the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another; and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they would not be ruled despotically but also because they are loyal to one another, and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men; (3) the tyrant desires that his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible, and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny, if they are powerless. Under these three heads the whole policy of a tyrant may be summed up, and to one or other of them all his ideas may be referred: (1) he sows distrust among his subjects; (2) he takes away their power; (3) he humbles them."

Politics By Aristotle

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.5.five.html

> "I have no patience for countries that try to treat gays or lesbians or transgender persons in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them," Mr Obama said.

But governments that target pot growers and dissident reporters are A-OK.

> You have to believe some things you are told.

That depends on the source. If the source has proven to be wrong, dishonest or malicious more often than not, it would strike me as wise to believe nothing from that source until I can verify it for myself.

NP!

Read a history of them and decide for yourself.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bilderberg

One Bilderberger sells paper to another Bilderberger.

> He is also a member of the Bilderberg Group and attended the Swiss 2011 Bilderberg conference in St. Moritz, Switzerland. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#Recognition

> He is also an invitee of the Bilderberg Group and attended conference meetings in Greece 2009,[4] and Spain 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_E._Graham#Other_roles

I think that this signals that Bezos is going into the fish and chips business.

They're related in their origin.

If 4 different terror operations were coming from Al Qaeda affiliated cells, we'd say they were all Al Qaeda related. If 4 different drug dealers were busted that were all being supplied by one source, we'd call it a drug ring.

All of the operations mentioned - the war on drugs, civil asset forfeiture, the DEA intelligence program from today, the TSA - are a ring of government operatives that are terrorizing, robbing and imprisoning Americans.

You were never called any names. He said you were an apologist. In reading your postings, your comments do strike me as having an overtone of apology for the surveillance state.

In political matters - the power of government vs. the rights of the individual - most people will fall into one of the two groups as a basic mode of operation for their perceptions and personal philosophy. When governments become tyrannical, as the US government is now proving itself to be, the contrast between the two modes becomes starkly delineated.

Authority vs. Liberty is an ancient human argument that is obviously still being played out. Those of us with an unbreakable attachment to Liberty will see any arguments in favor of the current regime as apologia.

> the war on drugs, civil asset forfeiture, the DEA intelligence program from today, the no-fly list

They're all related. They're all policies and actions of overly zealous bureaucrats with too much power and little to no accountability.

If one is opposed to violence but still depending on a livelihood from an organization that depends on violence to realize its goals - be it a gang, a government or a military - then one might not be as opposed to violence as is thought.

It's very useful. We're still talking about it.

“Those who are capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it.”

― Lysander Spooner