Yikes.

  • Syrc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The issue is that it’s a slippery slope. When you start taking human rights away from one group of people, it could very easily lead to innocent people, or entire groups, being framed and legally stripped of their possessions. That’s why I think opening that can of worms is a bad idea.

    And it’s not that easy. People figured hundreds of ways to hide wealth and there’s no way you can regulate them all. Split it between relatives, buy non-quantifiable assets, hell they could buy bitcoins with multiple proxies on the dark web from an old pc in the middle of Africa and we’d know absolutely nothing of that. Unless you build some sort of utopic database which documents every living person’s possessions and the exchange between them, it’s just not possible.

    • MentalEdge
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What exactly is your point?

      That because it would be difficult to get right, we shouldn’t try?

      Isn’t that true for most things worth doing?

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just think giving the government a legal way to close down corporations and seize their assets doesn’t set a good precedent and could do more harm than good.

        In contrast, I think having fines that actually matter and laws more strict on what a site can do without permission from the user are easier to do and have overall less ways to be exploited.