Do you want to be feared or liked?
Topic of discussion formulated in one of the groups of LinkedIn: Is the Government Trying to Kill Digital Currency? which of course was initiated in the article of the same name on June 3rd, 2013 edition of American Banker.
Many people feel that it is simply an issue of control, and prevention of fraud or illegal activity that promulgated the US response to Bitcoin and Liberty Reserve. There is a litany of writers, agencies and officialdom from within any number of Secretariats, bureaucracies and organizations who have their own spin on why these digital finance mechanisms should be shut down.
There is appropriate and disproportionate response to any issue that threatens to challenge the status quo (in this case - brick and mortar banking networks already established and firmly under government regulation and control). There are a number of people that pay lip service to the realm of governance and regulation - including existing directors and senior management of financial institutions - who will list an equally varied checklist of reasons to support their opinion that no alternative finance and banking should occur.
The use of fear, deliberately masked under a pretense of 'being liked' in historical context of similar global and economic constraints is the reason why Friday the 13th became a common phobia. Papal and royal assent to the seizure and capture of Knights Templar assets, internationally was promulgated because it represented a perceived lack of control, and a fear that such would allow too much power to aggregate outside government(s) direct influence.
Removing the layers of competing argument from the current discussion regarding why a new operating model for international finance, and digital delivery should not be allowed (or even a bridging mechanism between the new and old) it is evident that the response is in fact disproportionate and scattered.
If you believe that legitimacy of an alternative world of finance is in fact a threat - then it would be wise to lay out a clear, concise and coherent case to support that. If the threat is very large - only one or two reasons should be needed - since one assumes the universality of the threat is easily identifiable and recognized. Yet this is indeed not the case with Bitcoin or Liberty.
Why is that?
The answer is startlingly simple, and perceptible - fear. Fear over lack of control, lack of accountability and detection play neither primary or secondary roles - but rather tertiary levels. Fear and exclusion are how America is financed, run, administered and governed - and it permeates everything that it does to its own citizens as well as finances.
Since the US Federal Reserve is a private corporation, and Washington in fact has no Central Bank - any agent of change in currency (either registered or not) is in fact a threat to the house of cards developed since 2001 with the printing of money. Any mechanism that can in fact create a more natural market valuation of currency in trading of goods and services that falls outside the choreography of the Fed - is a direct threat and should be feared. Make no mistake - this is the prime fear point leading to the rejection of the Liberty and Bitcoin existence.
Legitimate secondary fears include a number of items closely related - but in themselves unique and more abstract. Therefore, they are in fact difficult to convey to the 'sheeple'. These include international commerce finance (M1 and M2 macroeconomic money flow), currency redemption (imagine if no one wanted any American currency around the world -how that devaluation would in fact effect the American domestic and export economies), monopolistic and oligopoly formation and activity in areas of digital technology and lastly a shortage of currency in circulation to 'prime' the engines of manufactured goods and services.
No where on this list - in fact is terrorism, tax evasion / avoidance, or uninsured investment account collapses (which itself was hypocrisy - how many people personally had their mortgage saved? - or their small businesses?)
I write all of that - simply to state this:
You cannot regulate fear. Acting in or out of fear will never satisfy or make whole a law (or series of laws) that are naturally wrong. People communicate, travel, do business and attend to personal affairs on a global basis - and demand that their financial services should do likewise. Creating a wealth of regulatory environments without understanding the prime motivational factors actually in play - will never work (as is evidenced by the slippery slope of the G8 economies in movement to artificial and nonsensical 'tools' like derivatives that have no inherent value).
Embrace the need for a change to mitigate current and future risks in aligning a transparent tool for promoting a more market driven valuation of all goods and services. Excellence in devising an advanced model will in fact secure a future role in how it will play out ( and it is coming to the point that the existing system will collapse) adding unimaginable wealth of knowledge and currency to America. There will be no single right answer - but at least be honest with why you are professing the existing practices to be 'wrong'.
Could something be designed? Absolutely. Will it? Not until we are all honest enough to see it work for the right reasons. Clearly we are not there yet as a society, or as a people.
Honesty and forward thinking will get you liked, and respected, thereby eliminating a gamut of other issues related to fear. You are a beautiful concept America, and I love you dearly. Will the real America please standup.
