Yes, and if the police won't actively police every square foot where there are people, they could at least let citizens do so through concealed carry of a weapon.
And yet, somehow, there's a large group of people that is always for people meddling in other people's business by telling on them (including calling the police when they see a citizen legally open-carrying!).
It must be because laissez faire is not easy to spell.
I don't really see how this is relevant however reporting suspicious Fiverr jobs is totally different giving citizens the right to employ lethal force. The stakes are slightly different.
They do it without asking (the Federal Reserve Act was passed Christmas Eve 1913 - around the same time the IRS came into being, what a coincidence) and most people do not understand the harm in it (even here on HN).
CP will only be remotely a good excuse to not do something once we have made spanking children illegal and punishable as assault. It's unbelievable the assault laws discriminate by age and don't protect the weakest. Spanking occurs MUCH more often than CP (there's no comparison) and the damages are enormous and long-lasting (including a lower IQ). So if you care about kids, help spread the word and hopefully more people will come to their senses and understand that assault should not be legal just because the victim is underage.
JoeAltmaier you are breaching the negativity rules.
You're just being negative here by willfully ignoring that said doctor is giving the drug away for free, which is not the usual modus operandi of quack doctors.
LIBOR doesn't demonstrate that banks rely on trust. None of the involved banks or brokers trusted that anyone else was actually being honest about LIBOR submissions or predictions.
Even if there were any system safeguarding LIBOR whatsoever, a blockchain wouldn't have helped. The reason it was so easy to falsify your bank's LIBOR submission was because they were essentially made up. Submitters produced the number by talking to brokers and then making a decision. A blockchain wouldn't have made any difference. You'd put your submission on the blockchain, and you wouldn't be able to change it later if things didn't turn out how you liked, but you had made up the submission anyway. Nobody would ever be able to point to some number on the blockchain and say definitively that your reported LIBOR figure for today should have been X but in fact it was Y and therefore you're a crook, because the figures were never verified. They'd only be able to say "There's no record, so you could easily have just made up the number," and you'd say "I did make it up, that's how you do it, everyone else made theirs up too," and that would pretty much be it. The only way to catch someone being dishonest was to find records of employees talking about it; the Hayes case and others like it are based on the fact that bankers incriminated themselves by discussing the manipulation with each other.
By contrast, when banks transfer specific quantities of money, they absolutely are not relying on a trust-based system. I owed you X, I sent you X, and I swear to God if you come to me later and say I only sent Y and I owe you more dosh there will be a fight. If you produce internal records kept by your accountants that say I totally only sent Y, no bank would take your word for it under any circumstances. Similarly, if there was a mixup and some of my assets ended up with you by accident, my chances of convincing you that I should get them back are nonexistent if I don't have some outside system demonstrating that I'm not lying. In real life, financial institutions rely on third-party businesses to be that "outside system." A blockchain would help solve our problem without those businesses. I wouldn't need to trust you, the transaction would be recorded on our blockchain, and if either of us thought the other could falsify the blockchain we wouldn't have agreed to use it. If the blockchain says I really didn't send enough money, I'll probably say something about a technical glitch and give you the cash while I grumble about how much I hate technology. Neither of us have to trust each other any more than we already don't, and we don't have to involve some kind of trust or clearing business.
> Unless you can list here the "checks and balances ...
The key check on Libor was that it took a pretty big conspiracy to fix it. There were approx 16 banks submitting numbers, and the process was to rank those numbers, drop the top 4 and bottom 4, then average the rest.
So once you have 5 banks in your conspiracy you can sway the final result by 1/8th of the amount you lie by.
And these numbers are quoted in hundredths of a percent.
So, yes there was trust, but it was of the institutions in their people. They did not expect that such a big conspiracy could be mounted, for so long, without anyone calling foul.
(Well, some folks did report to the Bank of England that Libor was essentially fiction, but arguably that was quite late)
EDIT: And there is a balance, too. The biggest market is "interbank", i.e. banks offsetting their own cash and risk with other banks who have the opposite position. On any given day, some banks will be net payers of Libor and some will be net receivers. So, as institutions, they aren't all going to lie in the same direction.
This doesn't help you if the lying is done by individuals, ignoring the impact on their own institution, encouraged by things like free coffee.
1 - it's incredibly hard to produce.
2 - it's incredibly hard to ensure something is pure LSD.
Those problems are not there for psilocybe mushrooms, for which the LD50 has never been found (read: it's totally safe).