[ExI] Bad news for US customers of Intrade
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Sat Dec 1 08:47:31 UTC 2012
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki
> <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> you demand that bureaucrats
>> have to control individual securities trades rather than letting
>> market participants make their own decisions. In your world people
>> have to act through gatekeepers of power (elected officials, unelected
>> bureaucrats) rather than through individual acts of trade.
> I request an apology.
> You have been claiming that my support for any degree
> of law and regulation, means that I support total law and
> no individual choice. For instance, see the above-quoted
### Adrian, you need to read an adversary's statement attentively,
before giving a hasty reply. Where in the above statement do you find
the word "total" or other related quantifiers ("only", "all", "none")?
Obviously, I accuse you of trending towards restricting other people's
freedom compared to present levels of subjugation. Whether there is a
bridge on the road to serfdom that you would never cross, I don't know
- and I make no comments or insinuations thereto.
> As you state it, either I can "let market participants make
> their own decision" or I can "demand that bureaucrats
> have to control individual securities trades". What I
> support is not 100% either one, but in between.
### Oh, great.
> Further, my support for some degree of law is based in
> part on the knowledge that uncontrolled anarchy becomes
> despotism - which rather massively takes away individual
### Yeah, but why do you keep changing the subject? We are not talking
about uncontrolled anarchy, we are talking about a market-based
society. You don't think that "market" and "anarchy" are synonyms, do
That is to say, 100% individual control does not
> (yet) work in reality, so the practical choice is between a
> little control or a lot of control.
### 100% individual control is logically incoherent whenever two or
more individuals physically interact with each other, so obviously,
neither I nor Dan are talking about it.
It's, like, we talk about one thing, and you read into it some
off-the-wall extreme meaning that clearly is not there.
> Future technological solutions may be able to reduce the
> practical minimum amount of control. This will be a good
> thing. Until then, we live in the world we live in.
### So agitating for freedom and the end of the mohair subsidies has
to wait for new techno-gadgets?
> Therefore, to claim that I support total government control
> and the complete removal of individual choice, just
> because I support any degree of control (which I support
> in order to *protect* individual choice), is an insult.
### Read what I write before you feel insulted.
>> ### In all encounters with me so far you have taken the side of more
>> government control of our lives, compared to what we have now (there
>> is a duty to vote, there is no right to trade securities etc.).
> This "encounter" was of your asking whether I support
> Dodd-Frank. That exists now. Nothing in my direct
> response stated a desire for far more of Dodd-Frank,
> but merely support for what exists (and only the
> majority of it) in this topic.
### Well, you do support Dodd-Frank, so yes, you side with those who
two years ago restricted our ability to trade. This year, again, you
supported restrictions on Intrade, continuing the trend.
> This is but one example where I have not, in fact,
> taken the side of more government control than what
> we have now.
### Hey, give me more.
Interesting choice of pronoun - "we". In this very same sentence I
would have inserted "they".
> I wonder whether you are deliberately lying, or simply
> rejecting all evidence that contrasts with your
> assertions. Either way, you are wrong.
More information about the extropy-chat