pull down to refresh
@Arceris
86,596 sats stacked
245 sats \ 1 reply \ @Arceris OP 18 Dec \ parent \ on: TX District court denies FinCEN request to stay injunction. Politics_And_Law
I feel like they will deny to stay the injunction. I'm biased and believe the government’s arguments are weak.
That said, I also believe that, given the timeframe, the harm the court would do leaving only a few days for millions of entities to comply is substantial. And the plaintiffs are likely to make that argument in detail.
So I’m feeling that they will not lift the injunction, or will order it lifted in a delayed manner (like on 1/15).
Are you able to log in through SSH, or on the local console? You said no errors appear on the console, but IIRC you can log in there to a CLI. It may require permissions to be set in the web gui, so it may not be possible yet.
I wrote a Bitcoin Magazine article on this, though it was directed toward a bitcoin audience related to nullification of anti-bitcoin laws.
In sum:
Jury nullification is a consequence of a fair and impartial jury system. Put most simply, it is the power of a criminal jury to return a not guilty verdict, even though the prosecution meets the legal burden for a guilty verdict. It often stems from changes in the societal moral compass, for instance, when an act is no longer deemed to be criminal by that day's standards. It is not, what one might call, an explicit right of a jury, but rather it is a necessary logical consequence of any system that purports to maintain a fair and impartial jury.
This is an interesting project, and I look forward to when you get to her more substantive bills. However I have one quibble:
On a scale of Mises/Rothbard = 5 and total commie = 1, I think it’s unfair to label something that has no (or at least an de-minimus) effect on freedom a 2.
All these coin/stamp bills are bullshit, but on your rather steep scale, they’re all neutral or very slightly negative. But they don’t differentially detract from freedom. They should all be rated equivalently regardless of the subject (somehow Girl Scouts & animals cause 20% more freedom, because you like them better than generals & the flag?)
I think they all should be 3, or maybe 2.75, and all the same, since they’re essentially de minimus BS bills anyway.
I don’t know, it’s your metric, so do what you will.
"The Government responded that if the Court were to enjoin the CTA and Reporting Rule, the scope of which included NFIB’s members, then the Court would, in practical effect, enter a nationwide injunction. The Court agrees with the Government’s point. A nationwide injunction is appropriate in this case." Page 75.
Ouch.
Of course, the CTA requires everyone to report to the feds, even if they are in a state that hates privacy. And a huge fine if you don't report. With generous exemptions for large businesses.
So basically an attack on both privacy and small businesses.
Nice hook, but the Real Nash isn’t wrong 🤣
I, however, may be (and I probably am) wrong.
But I believe the formal design of a nash equilibrium doesn’t require coordination between the actors, whereas the movie version seems to imply that the men need to cooperate (in a kind of prisoner’s dilemma).
A Nash equilibrium, if i recall correctly, results in an optimal strategy for each actor regardless of the actions of other actors, and no actor can improve their outcome without cooperation.
As I have Bitcoin, and they don’t, the answer is clear 🤣
If they started buying bitcoin, harder to say…
You’re correct that the incoming admin is likely to back way off on indirect regulation, especially in the crypto and oil & gas space. Not entirely sure about unilateral disarmament on the concept though (very happy to be proven wrong here!).
I’m not entirely sure that Loper Bright will strongly impact indirect regulation though. Chevron more allowed agencies to unilaterally impose direct regulation when they shouldn’t have that power.
Indirect regulation (at least as I understand it) is more of a “we have no power to force you to do this, but if you don’t, then you can expect us to be extra super thorough in going after what we can.”
Unless the Trump admin is able to put in place some guarantees, future administrations can and will reach for these tools again.
Of course, what I really want is unlimited personal liability for regulators who use their power to coerce others to engage in acts which would be unconstitutional for the regulator to do. One can dream.
Regardless, Jan 20 can’t come soon enough.