Well, actually you are wrong about everything you wrote here. But if you are interested, you will have to read through the history of my posts to learn how.

If I were to pick on one thing - "money laundering". You maintain that it is a bad thing. It is not. It is a method of escaping government's censorship of transacting the assets that you own. Whether those assets were stolen or not, interfering with transacting is not the right way of dealing with it. They can prevent the act of stealing, or they can arrest the stolen assets, or if they fail to do it, they lost. Interfering at transaction level is not their business, no excuses. The essence is that rarely they treat stolen money as illegal. Mostly it is the money that was obtained from other market participants but government does not approve or had no opportunity to sign those transactions off or had not taxed it. That is the point. Anybody's transactions is not government's business. If they want to prevent a crime, they have to catch the thief by hand. Not treat everybody's money illegal afterwards.

So this is just 2 words of what you wrote that demonstrate how misinformed about right and wrong you are. Everything (not most, everything) else you wrote is also wrong, built on the same false foundation. Read carefully through my entire post history to see how. That is easy, will only take you like several thousand hours. But including all the references it will be more, of course. But that is the only way.

I know you won't do it. But this is a public discussion, so I must make myself clear as much as possible in a hope that by some miracle it will be useful for somebody else reading this.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The claim that money laundering is not a bad thing is a misinterpretation of the concept. Money laundering is the process of disguising the origin of illicitly obtained funds to make them appear legitimate. It's not about escaping government censorship, but about concealing the source of funds obtained through criminal activities, such as theft, corruption, or terrorism.

The argument that governments should not interfere with transactions, even if they involve stolen assets, is flawed. Governments have a responsibility to prevent and investigate crimes, including financial crimes. Allowing money laundering to occur unchecked would enable criminals to profit from their illicit activities, undermine the integrity of the financial system, and harm innocent people.

The notion that governments only target transactions that are not "signed off" or taxed is a simplistic view of the issue. Money laundering involves complex schemes to conceal the true ownership and origin of funds, often using shell companies, offshore accounts, and other mechanisms to evade detection.

You call it "concealing the source" and "illicit", I call it not signed off by the gov. It is not a simplistic view, it is a straight forward short description of exactly what it is, void of any sugar coating.

I will end the discussion here. Whoever is interested, for any follow ups, as mentioned, check my post history over the past few years.