Interesting question in the Buttcoin reddit.

Rather than admit defeat and reveal that they were running a ponzi, they simply gave away your assets and added more leverage to the system in an attempt to hide the deficit. At this time an ethical person with morals would have said “I’m sorry, I didn’t realise what we were doing. We’re folding the company and returning what remains of user assets”. Instead they went with “Hey SBF, give us some shitcoins as a line of credit and we’ll give you our user’s assets.”

My first thought: A person with some positive moral sense wouldn’t be in this line of work at all.

Question: Well, specifically which line of work? Part of the category is easy. Stock trading and bitcoin trading are universally and innately criminal. Whether the “token” is index options or dogecoins, the SOLE PURPOSE of the occupation is to steal money from suckers.

Question 2: Does this apply to all abstract money-related trades? Everything that doesn’t create a physical product (food, cars) or a physical service (barbering, prostitution)?

Innate individual morality doesn’t help with this question, but Natural Law, the integral of individual morality, has a specific answer. The two civilization-creating systems agree that ONE of the abstract trades is morally positive, or at least allowable for indirect reasons.

What trade? Life insurance. Sharia law carefully allows mutual insurance contracts with strong restrictions. The Soviet system had an active life-insurance industry, similar to ours, with 40k insurance agents.

%d bloggers like this: