Not this nonsense again... the reason we don't have borderless payments isn't because we don't have the technology. It's because we don't want borderless payments. That's why nations set up borders in the first place.
Who's "we"? Maybe you don't want borderless payments, you're in good company along with Xi Jinping, the Venezuelan government and the Ayatollah of Iran.
Those of us that want to be the arbiters of our own lives are very happy having the capability to transact with whomever we want. I'd wager that that is the majority of human beings on this planet.
Is that how you feel about all the public infrastructure and institutions? It's nice to want no control at all, but then you have... no control at all. Usually that does not benefit the weak either.
"Total control or no control at all" is a false dichotomy. I never said I want no control at all. We have to live amongst each other, and people are sometimes tempted to murder and defraud each other. I'd say the level of control I'd find reasonable is just enough to punish and deter people from murdering and defrauding each other, and we had that without everyone's liquid capital in megalithic institutions a single phone call away from seizure, as recently as the 1990s.
> Xi Jinping, the Venezuelan government and the Ayatollah of Iran
Wow so much more horrible than being in good company with George Bush, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney and the other assorted Anglosaxons. Because only Anglosaxon enemies are horrible people. Even if 75% of the world think precisely the opposite.
Its 23 years into 21st century. Its time for 'white man's burden' mentality to die out in all its incarnations.
But you did. Constant lambasting, smearing of an establishment's enemies while not using the scepter of the same criteria against the own establishment makes 'others' evil and the establishment 'not so evil'.
1) no i didn't, 2) I made one comment, there's nothing constant about it, 3) they're not smears.
I don't like the leadership in the west either, but I don't use them as examples in this case because they're not the obvious examples. The US doesn't have capital flight restrictions the way China does. When we are talking about drone striking civilians I'll be sure to bring up Obama instead of Xi. You really need to not take this stuff so personal.
They are. Just like how it was with all the US enemies before those, "Every US enemy is Hitler". Because there is no other way to justify atrocious wars.
> I don't like the leadership in the west either
And yet, you dont go around making strong statements filled with emotion about those who murdered 1 million in Iraq etc and pushing for their persecution or their overthrow.
> You really need to not take this stuff so personal.
It is personal. This kind of rhetoric is used to build up public opinion for overseas wars and regime changes, which then come and hit the countries of people like me overseas. There doesn't even need to be a majority opinion for it - the establishment doesnt care about the majority's opinion - its enough if just a percentage of public makes enough noise in the way they want them to. Like how you helped make happen.
...
Actually, its more than personal now - as of this moment the US is pushing war with two superpowers at the same time - Russia and China - using that very rhetoric. It is even easing the public into believing that 'a nuclear war wouldnt be so destructive'. The psychopathy and delirium are now at a civilization-destroying level, not a 'We will have some overseas wars to bash the heads in of some 3rd world countries to rob their oil' level. If things go at the rate they are going, this thing wont remain as a scholarly, no-strings-attached opinion matter for you like how it is now either. Its no longer like a football match played in an away field...
Okay, but be honest and call it for what it is — a tool to evade financial regulations. 'Borderless payments' is shameless cynicism. It's like calling illegal border crossings 'borderless travel'.
And what of the people who crossed freely before your cabal constructed imaginary "borders" on someone else's land?
Rules and laws are merely suggestions. I think and live on my own, and follow laws insofar as they benefit myself and others. Show me a tool used to undermine an unjust law, and I'll gladly employ it should the need arise. I'll accept the consequences too, in this venture or any other.
No, for me at least, and for most others I'd bet, it's simply about being able to engage in commerce with other people without an arbiter in the middle. Something like cash or commodity money, which was the norm for all of human history until very recently.
It seems like it would have to be an overstatement to say that any form of money was the norm for “all” of human history. I would think that any form of money (much less something like cash) would be a relatively recent development relative to the emergence of modern humans, though of course no one will ever be able to say for sure.
Well we know money is older than writing, because writing was invented to keep track of money. Prior to that we call "prehistory." Either way, it's an understatement to say that peer to peer money is ancient compared to debit cards.
Is cash "a tool to evade financial regulations"? Did you know that it was the predominant form of money into the 21st century in the developed world, and basically the only option for most people prior to the 1990s?
May I ask where you're posting from and why this is your viewpoint?
Nation borders are healthy and good because they set an upper bound on the potential concentration of power that could get into the wrong hands. There's a very good reason tyrants quickly turn to violating national borders.
But decentralized currencies prevent those scenarios by design -- thus protecting them from nation-state-level tyranny (and monetary mismanagement to boot).
Hmm. Which rules are you referring to? International? If so, I think most of this forum agree that realpolitik made those rules amount to 'might is right'. Local government? If so, parent is very much correct indicating local population's willingness and desire to bypass existing systems governed by international parties above.
I have no real stake in this, but the conversation seems very one sided.
Do you mean the rules that restrict the movement of people, capitals and goods across borders? These are typically national laws. I have no idea why you think this is important, though.
Interesting. Taking this approach to its logical conclusion, one would think national laws stop at the border of a given nation. Clearly, however, they do not, but rather extend based on a given influence sphere with SWIFT network being closest to what we would consider international movement of capital across the borders ( I am skipping people and goods, because that is a whole different animal ) and OFAC being a clear example of what happens when one nation can dictate terms of engagement in the world.
<< I have no idea why you think this is important, though.
It is important, because previous post seemed to indicate that Lebanese diaspora should not dream of being able to send payments ( if I misrepresent your position, please correct me as needed ). Separately, I have personal opinions grounded primarily in the officially espoused promise of the US ( freedom, liberty and all that jazz ). Whether US lives up to those promises varies lately.
I think you're misunderstanding how borders work. A border simply allows a country to control what goes in and out of its geographic boundaries. It doesn't allow a country to control what goes in and out of another country's geographic boundaries (that would be a blockade).
And I never said that the Lebanese diaspora shouldn't be able to send payments, I don't know where you get this idea from.
Parent 'jonathan-adly' indicated specific use case for 'Lebanese diaspora', which you then derided. We briefly discussed the 'boundaries' without any real specifics and here we are now.
<< I think you're misunderstanding how borders work.
It is possible.
<< A border simply allows a country to control what goes in and out of its geographic boundaries.
And yet countries manage to "control what goes in and out of another country's geographic boundaries" despite that. Asterisk may be needed with something akin to 'to an extent', but it is hard to argue with that simple reality.
