About 6 months ago (when Mt Gox had some other issues with people's money) I said: > If you trusted a company that started out trading Magic: the Gathering cards with a significant amount of your money, you probably need the lesson you are going to learn from this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6264666 And was mocked/dismissed. It's disheartening to me the blind spot that otherwise intelligent people have when…
Mt.Gox's tweets are all gone
101–105 of 105 posts
Re: Mt.Gox's tweets are all gone
#102Not a great day to be a Libertarian. When their domain goes up for sale, I'm going to buy it and start an online exchange for Magic cards.
Re: Mt.Gox's tweets are all gone
#103Not a great day to be a Libertarian. When their domain goes up for sale, I'm going to buy it and start an online exchange for Magic cards.
Not a great day to be a Libertarian Cherry-picking one high-profile catastrophic failure isn't exactly an intellectually honest indictment of Libertarianism. It's not like there's a shortage of better indictments to use. It is a good day for schadenfreude, though.
That said, this whole episode might serve as an interesting case in relation to many Libertarian talking points, such as the relative merits of many regulations covering savings & loan organizations in most countries.
Re: Mt.Gox's tweets are all gone
#104Not a great day to be a Libertarian. When their domain goes up for sale, I'm going to buy it and start an online exchange for Magic cards.
So in the current EU/US political climate, MtGox would be bailed out, meaning people who didn't invest their money with MtGox would be forced to make the people who did whole. Whereas in the current BitCoin climate, the investors suffer and will be forced to sue MtGox to reclaim their money. Which is morally better? No libertarian will tell you that either of these is a preferred outcome, but out of the two, the mora…
Except that it isn't. Hence why many smart people disagree on the issue.
The difference is meta-ethical. The TBTF argument is fundamentally a utilitarian one - it's saying, "This is distasteful, but we're going to do it anyway because we believe it will result in a better final outcome." The Libertarian take on the issue frames it in a fundamentally deontological light, as you have. It's concerned with the actions themselves, and doesn't even attempt to speculate on long-term practical consequences of any particular choice of action because they aren't relevant to the argument under that particular framing.
Which is fine, both are legitimate approaches to ethics. What bothers me is when the two camps start just talking past each other. Which is what seems to be happening when one makes a statement such as "the morally superior one should be relatively obvious" in this context. In terms of persuasiveness, it's reminiscent of the Verizon "Which one is bigger?" ad campaign - there's an attempt to get at something legitimate there, but it's overshadowed by a rhetorical approach that could make even the best argument in the world feel unpersuasive.
Re: Mt.Gox's tweets are all gone
#105Not a great day to be a Libertarian. When their domain goes up for sale, I'm going to buy it and start an online exchange for Magic cards.
Not a great day to be a Libertarian Cherry-picking one high-profile catastrophic failure isn't exactly an intellectually honest indictment of Libertarianism. It's not like there's a shortage of better indictments to use. It is a good day for schadenfreude, though.