cody on Nostr: I see where you’re coming from—but I think the problem is that too much gets lost ...

I see where you’re coming from—but I think the problem is that too much gets lost in the gap between people’s inherent conception of rights and the reasons why those rights should or should not be infringed. Even if it’s the case nothing is owed to explain why a right should exist, there has to be an articulable reason why it shouldn’t be taken away if there’s a belief that doing so is necessary for some higher-order reason (e.g., national security).

My fear is that when lawmakers go into the chasm to learn about crypto, they leave without having anything concrete to assuage these higher-order concerns. E.g., if a politician goes in to learn about crypto with the belief it can be used to fund terrorism, but is willing to be persuaded otherwise, it is going to be tough to move their position when most of the readily-accessible knowledge base they can draw from is comprised of middling statements like “it’s not that widespread,” or “it’s not as bad as banking.”

I’m not saying they can’t also weigh those alongside the other positive benefits crypto can offer, but that those benefits are easier to dismiss or devalue in the absence of other positions that directly clash with the specific issue—especially one where the consequences under consideration (e.g. terrorism) are taken so seriously by those in government.