"the problem with corruption, inefficiency and stupidity in government is corruption, inefficienty and stupidity, not government"

And crypto isn't dominated by the wealthy and being used to serve their ends? Open your eyes my friend. There is far more corruption and disfunction in the average cryptocurrency org than the average government.

Did I say that? I explicitly say in multiple places that I'm not advocating for crypto, just asking people to not put the blind trust into their government "just passing a law".

It always baffles me why someone can't say "I'm opposed to X" without another person coming along and saying "that means you're in favor of Y". Don't respond to what you think I said, respond to what I actually said.

You seem pretty focused on this idea of "blind trust" of the government which nobody is advocating. So perhaps you should take your own advice?

I didn't assume you supported crypto. I was pointing out that crypto has all the problems you specified as bad or worse.

I'm not sure how the advice of "just pass a law" is anything other than blind trust. If you didn't think I was advocating crypto, then what purpose does:

> And crypto isn't dominated by the wealthy and being used to serve their ends? Open your eyes my friend

serve? Why would you mention something completely unrelated to their point, then tell them to open their eyes? To me it sounds like you're retroactively recasting your argument.

> You make a law that everyone must be served by the banks. Easy.

Here is the "just pass a law" line. I've summarized a line that makes this exact point. I see no straw-men here. Can you point out where I make a straw-man? Genuinely interested in why you see this as creating a straw-man in my summary. I fail to see how else you can interpret other than 'just pass a law'.

"just pass a law" is longer than "make a law" and is thus not a summarization...

Quotations marks imply a quote or a refernce to a term / phrase. When you deliberate misquote someone and then repeat that all over the thread as the basis for your argument, that is a strawman at best and pure bad faith at worst.

I see nothing in the line you are referencing that indicates any sort of blind trust is suggested. Even simple, easy legistlation works best when the trust it is based on is not blind.

> When you deliberate misquote someone

Yeah, I'm done with this. I told you my objective was to summarize, you have decided I'm maliciously twisting someone's words. I'm not. I've told you as much. My misuse of quotation marks isn't proof in the pudding. I've explained multiple times, to you no less, my point but you've ignored it and have actually strawmanned it yourself. This is what you're doing right now actually by accusing me of random things.

I suggest you look into the "principal of charity". Its fine to disagree, but being hostile and accusatory isn't.

Read these while you're at it: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The principal of charity is why I suggested you are stawmanning rather than actively trolling. You asked for am explanation and I provided it.

You've never explained how you got to the assumption that anyone here is suggesting "blind faith" in the government. Please go ahead and do that or don't claim you've "explained multiple times."

I suspect because "make a law" conveys some sense of the actual process of legislating, whereas "just pass a law" sounds as if it deliberately minimizes the process and makes it sound as if it is something trivial to do.

I thought it was a fair summary, but I can also see how someone would arrive at your conclusion. I read it as minimizing, but you make a fair point.

I agree with your points 1-3 but I don't think your conclusion in 4 follows logically. It misses important historical context of where passing laws did in fact create more equitable access to important civic resources. Take for instance the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. You could have made the same argument you are making now to dissuade people from passing those laws.

I definitely think laws can do what you say. But I think that's not always what happens. What I object to is really more specifically how the gist is "change the laws, its an easy fix". Anyone who spectates government (odd phrase, I know) will understand that this is very much not an easy fix.

Well let's face it, there's a widespread and popular political philosophy floating around (especially in the USA) which essentially boils down "the rich are not rich enough and the poor are too rich", so this proposal would fit right in with that !