China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

People disagree about what rights people have and what rights governments have. Simply prefixing the word rights with a phrase like "innate," "fundamental," or "inalienable" to make it seem beyond debate is just sophistry.

Just like people will always abuse the system. People hae learned to do this, especially in the US. Your solution is simply to make it easier for companies to screw people. Why don't people boycott companies TODAY when they do this? If they did, then I might support your argument. The fact is that there is no evidence for people doing this.

>People do that today as well. With a mandatory safety standard, you can probably raise quality in the short term, but there is a trade-off, in increasing costs and reducing innovation.

If they do they are thrown in jail. Now usually the people really responsible are not because of a failing legal system. That problem is not solved by just letting them do it and get away scot free.

Regardings costs. Peopme are so amazingly bad at making decisions as a group. It is mathematically provable that if everyone acts in their own best interest everyone can easily be worse off as a result. This assumes everyone is a rational actor, and we know that people are not even close to that which makes it even worse.

>The greatest force for improved quality and increased affordability is, in the long run, competition between entities free to innovate without the artificial constraint of mandates on their procedures.

>A great many industries were kickstarted by government subsidy. Another reason to oppose regulations against the free market is that regulations are subject to being shaped by special interests, who may deliberately push for them to be onerous to stamp out smaller competitors. Many small farmers blame food production regulations for the demise of their sector and the growing dominance of industrial farming.

This is indeed a problem, but your solution is essentially to just let companies do what they would otherwise be have to lobby for. Most lobbying cases are for laxed regulation or to allow companies to get away with monopolistic practices.

>Not categorically. I want a strong authority maintaining security and the right to freely contract, but I want that authority to not use its power to infringe upon those same contracting rights

We can argue the word "freely" then. I don't believe people freely enter contractual relationships when one side has a clear power advantage and actively tries to manipulate you.

And by the way, it's not a fallacy to appeal to moderation when overdosing kills you.

Since you believe that everyone should make their own decisons and we should just live with that. Perhaps you should consider that the system we have to day was born out of people making their decison to not have 100% libertarianism because they were smart enough. By your logic this would be all the reason you would ever need.

At some point you just have to realise that the requirements necessary for the system you want to outperform what we have are opposite to how people actually behave in real life. I hope you are young, then it is fine to be a bit idealistic. We all realise why things don't work sooner or later.

Also I do local bitcoin transactions just fine thank you very much.

2) In that alternate reality, what advantage did your money have over YC, Andreessen Horowitz or Benchmark money? Were you able to connect founders to top government decision makers, or bulk up their growing management team with hard-to-get candidates? If the answer is "yes", you could've been awarded advisory shares in Uber and AirBnb without being a qualified investor (a gift is a gift, after all). But since more likely the answer is "no, my money is no different than money from a joe schmoe down the street", you will likely be required to overpay for a ridiculous valuation at seed stage. What effect would that have on your portfolio as a whole?

ICOs are among the few remaining opportunities to achieve liquidity for large BTC/ETH account balances.