Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If banning things russians might use is not the redistribution of consequences For the third time, it isn't. Whose consequences are being redistributed? > you should have no problem banning encryption Why should I support ineffective policy? > Without double standards you would have no standards at all. My standard is effective policy. Nothing of value is lost by regulating cryptocurrencies, and starving DPRK and R…
Did I send money to Russians? If not, and you still wish to ban me from using crypto, it’s the redistribution of consequences. “Why should I support ineffective policy” is precisely the moving of goalposts. Your original comment only said Russians using something is enough justification to ban it, you are now adding more conditions after the fact. You also conveniently ignored the point I made about constructing a sc…
Wrong. Your willingness to accept stolen goods from Russia and DPRK is what makes them valuable. Making it illegal for you to buy them is not redistribution of consequences. Allowing people who have had their property stolen the ability to get their property back from other parties in the same jurisdiction is also not redistribution of consequences.
> Your original comment only said Russians using something is enough justification to ban it,
Your problem is not that you don't understand what moving goalposts means but that you don't understand plain English sentences. Status quo allows Russians to steal from the rest of the world. I never once said we should ban cryptocurrencies (which is as impossible as banning them from using secure messaging), only to regulate them to prevent Russians from deriving value from stolen goods.
> Did I send money to Russians? If not, and you still wish to ban me from using crypto
Once again, where did I say I want to ban you from using crypto? I merely want them regulated as much as any other money transfer services. PayPal could allow transfer to Russia and DPRK without recourse for lower cost than cryptocurrencies, but they do not because they are regulated.
> You also conveniently ignored the point I made about constructing a scenario where your new goalposts are satisfied and just reposing the question.
You are unable to construct a scenario where my original goalposts are satisfied, so you imagine a world where you could. You're simply imagining a world where you win the argument without actually presenting the arguments to win it.
> Yes, the military and courts have to be paid with theft, but you believe in those things too
So you understand that your policies are unworkable. Once you admit that it is reasonable for people in societies to band together and collect taxes to spend on the public good, it's just a question of how much and for how much public benefit. Feel free to move to Somalia if you find this concept disgusting.