Hillary Clinton Is 'Disappointed' by Crypto Exchanges' 'Philosophy of Libertarianism'
Crypto's transcendence of national borders is a feature, not a bug.

During an appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC earlier this week, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had some choice words for crypto bros navigating questions of deplatforming amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
"If the Ukrainians with our help can impose enough economic pain on [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and, sadly, the Russian people, combined with providing weapons…that might be the only way…that I can see us getting to a stalemate that might save the Ukrainian people from even greater tragedy," said Clinton, referring to the broad-based sanctions imposed by Western governments on Russian financial institutions and state-owned companies.
Clinton added,"I was disappointed to see that some of the so-called crypto exchanges, not all of them, but some of them are refusing to end transactions with Russia for some philosophy of libertarianism or whatever," later in the segment. "Everybody…should do as much as possible to isolate Russian economic activity right now."
Maddow, who seemed to agree with her guest, responded by calling crypto "an escape hatch" with potential to stymie "multilateral action."
That's precisely the point. Crypto's transcendence of national borders is a feature, not a bug.
On Sunday, Ukraine's Vice Prime Minister Mykhailo Fedorov instructed crypto platforms to freeze the blockchain addresses of Russian and Belarusian users. Many major players in the crypto world bristled at this, pointing to the fact that administering such sanctions or deplatforming people based on nationality runs contrary to the liberatory promise of crypto.
Of course, many country's governments can and have cracked down on crypto exchanges in recent months by layering on reporting requirements for whenever large amounts of crypto are bought or sold. To a certain degree, exchanges are still subject to the rules of the countries they operate in—as opposed to cold wallets, which are offline means of storing your crypto. Since widespread crypto adoption is still in its infancy, governments are still ironing out their regulatory approaches; expect lots of different frameworks—and subsequent workarounds—in the coming years.
4/6 Our mission at @krakenfx is to bridge individual humans out of the legacy financial system and bring them in to the world of crypto, where arbitrary lines on maps no longer matter, where they don't have to worry about being caught in broad, indiscriminate wealth confiscation.
— Jesse Powell (@jespow) February 28, 2022
None of that is to say that broad-based economic sanctions won't be effective in applying pressure on Putin, but people within the crypto world tend to approach deplatforming people with major trepidation. Right now, ordinary Russians are being punished by sanctions for the sins of their strongman and it's important to take seriously the pain that will be felt by them.
For now, Russian users are still serviced by cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance and Kraken, which allow people to retain some amount of financial freedom even as their prospects look grim. Perhaps more will flock to those options in the future; they should have both financial and physical exit from their country available to them if they so choose. And, where crypto possibly helps everyday Russians, it also helps the Ukrainians under siege, who are facing the financial instability that accompanies war.
Crypto provides security & refuge for ordinary people who ought not be punished for the sins of their government pic.twitter.com/fIZUcyHjYj
— Liz Wolfe (@LizWolfeReason) March 2, 2022
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hillary is just Vlad with a vagina.
Cite?
Don’t want to talk about it.
Is the C word the new normal? (NOT “Clinton” just to clarify)
Dude, yo don’t want to see it. Trust me on this one
It’s uglier than the necronomicon.
Does it have a suitcase nuke embedded inside of it?
I had a hard time watching that episode.
I just want to say that your comment about Hiliary Clinton's vagina being uglier than the necronomicon won the internet for today.
Fuck Hillary Clinton
First get a bag of flour...
Now the Spawn of Satan, Chelsea, is being paraded around on TV.
Wheres my brick....
Putin or Dracula?
Drac is way cooler than Putin.
Who says they’re not one in the same?
There’s a way to easily prove or disprove this theory. Drive a wooden stake through Latin’s heart. If he crumbles to dust, he’s Dracula. If he doesn’t, he’s not.
Fuck Hillary Clinton (if you can stomach the thought).
So... Vladgina?
Anything that disappoints Hillary is a plus in my book. Why hasn't this witch been relegated to a cave somewhere yet?
Same here, for BOTH halves of The Looter Kleptocracy, and both of their whining losers, felled by LP spoiler votes.
What we smoking this evening Hank? Have you tried the gorilla cookie?
The on,y thing the LP has spoiled lately is the contents of the break room fridge.
I think Reason might be entering the "Most Obvious Headline of the Year" contest.
Hillary is a power-mad bitch who hates anything that might take away from centralized power.
Apt description
Imagine thinking that the biggest problem with humanity is too much freedom.
Imagine being a progressive?
On Sunday, Ukraine's Vice Prime Minister Mykhailo Fedorov instructed crypto platforms to freeze the blockchain addresses of Russian and Belarusian users. Many major players in the crypto world bristled at this, pointing to the fact that administering such sanctions or deplatforming people based on nationality runs contrary to the liberatory promise of crypto.
Of course, many country's governments can and have cracked down on crypto exchanges in recent months by layering on reporting requirements for whenever large amounts of crypto are bought or sold.
Here we go again.
If the exchanges represent a 'single point of failure' or at minimum, a pressure point that can be squeezed by governments, then aren't we back to the same or at least similar problem as any other method of banking. If the counter is "oh, those exchanges don't mean anything" then again "why am I talking to you" then? Why are they there? If they're irrelevant to the process, then they're a useless business model.
They're not useless as a business model in normal times, just like a bank isn't a useless business model in normal times.
When the government wants to steal your wealth, you don't leave your wealth in the bank IN EITHER CASE. You take control of your wealth yourself.
Crypto exchanges exist - at all times - because it's impractical to use crypto as *money*.
The transaction times are too long, the transaction fees too high and too volatile.
Hence the stablecoin exchanges.
In the end, they function just like a payment processor like Visa - and are subject to the same government pressures.
And that's not counting the lack of security and number of them that are basically scams. So they're Visa - but without any of the redeeming value.
This is my central issue. I believe the crypto exchanges are NOT a useless business model. I believe that they're a critical link in being able to use crypto in any realistic and stable sense.
And if you can't use the most stable system of exchanging money during "abnormal times" then... yeah.
What about in The New Normal times?
If Clinton is so concerned about the Ukrainian people, she could always give them the $50 million that Russia paid her to approve the sale of uranium from the US to Russia when she was Secretary of State.
She was just doing us a favor by getting rid of all that scary nuclear stuff.
It's so unusual for Hilliary to be wrong about anything...
"What difference—at this point, what difference does it make?"
A question you should try to answer rather than illiterately reposting for decades on end with no concern about context or meaning or anything.
Four people died at Benghazi and she was put on show trials dozens of times. Not a single result for the money spent.
Meanwhile the world has moved on to scandals costing hundreds of thousands of lives, none involving a Clinton.
True. A lot of other democrats are murdering people too.
Have you even tried pizza topped with the flesh of children?
White or dark meat?
Racist!
Is that the trendy thing with you progs lately? You love murdering babies, and in recent years I’ve seen published articles from leftists promoting cannibalism to help fight climate change. So it’s a natural progression for you people. Throw in the left’s growing pro pedophile sentiment and you have a trifecta.
I always order white pizza with extra adrenochrome.
All she knows is that the Russians should set up a foundation that people could “donate” to.
What do you expect from a crypto-fascist? (Seriously, we need to get that o r back in circulation)
I don’t think she’s a crypto fascist. Mostly cause she doesn’t hide her fascism.
I'm disappointed by Hillary Clinton's philosophy of despotism.
Does anyone remember the "official" tipping point where people who insist on being called "Liberal" decided that all concepts associated with actual liberalism (as it's been defined by philosophers for at least 500 years anyway) became "right-wing" or "alt-right" ideology?
1980 something. But the mask was pretty much off around 2010.
“Liberals” decided in 1990 that evil conservatives had made the term toxic. And so decided they wanted to be called “progressives”.
Of course in 1920 they decided that
the term “progressive” had become
radioactive and decided to call themselves liberals.
I’d like to call them all corpses.
Which is ironic, since progressives seem opposed to most forms of progress.
1848?
That’s when the democrat holy book was published.
Hillary is always disappointed when she can't make money or coalesce power or influence from her lying. More to the point, Putin very likely saw through her BS within seconds, and she didn't like that. No-talent, no experience shit for brains grifters like her in the DC area have become accustomed to being treated like they are something special. Her attempts at portraying cryptocurrencies as something nefarious is simply one more demonstration of what a vile ignorant bigot she is.
You lost me at Clinton and Rachel Maddow. Why would a libertarian magazine give a shit what those broads think?
Yeah, AFAICT, this is just an ad bought and paid for to get both names back into circulation now that were back to the new normal.
Yep.
Read Maddow, read MSNBC, read Clinton, skipped to comment to bitch about it.
Ok negative Nancy
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers?s=r
Now contrast that with the treatment of Alex Jones by the same institution. But if calling out your own propagandists as fake news is the only defense you have I guess you take it.
Hannity had a similar case with a similar result a few years before Maddow got sued for the same thing. Maybe the funniest part was that MSNBC had ridiculed Hannity's defense of claiming that he "wasn't presenting his take as facts" before Maddow's lawyers used the exact same claim in her case; one added wrinkle in the Maddow case is that they actually argued that her use of the word "literally" before making the allegedly defamatory statements was clear indication to any possible viewer that she wasn't intending her words to be taken as "literal fact".
Steering into that skid, we've now had a case in which lawyers for facebook argued that their "fact checks" are actually statements of opinion protected under 1A and not assertions of fact where there's a responsibility to have some regard for what is and isn't actually true.
WTF version of the Newspeak dictionary have we rolled to at this point anyway? If "literally" and "Fact Check" aren't to be taken as preface to something that's being presented as objectively true, then what's left to indicate when that's the case?
Shrillary should read Yevgeny Zamyatin's "WE." Looter ideologues cannot abide a single dissenter, so fragile is the self-deception of altruism: "Tomorrow is the day of the yearly election of the Well-Doer. Tomorrow we shall again hand over to our Well-Doer the keys to the impregnable fortress of our happiness. Certainly this in no way resembles the disorderly, unorganized election-days of the ancients, on which (it seems so funny!) they did not even know in advance the result of the election." From the 1924 edition, free on Gutenberg.org
Ok, boomer.
Why isn't this cunt dead yet?
Deal with the devil? Or alternatively she eats the souls of children?
Can’t it be both?
Some things are just too evil to die.
Madcow or Clinton?
That's what libertarianism is all about, isn't it? The ability to be a monster—with not just impunity but limitless potential.
The only reason crypto is a thing is because people convert it to real currencies. Most people want to get rich by speculating on it, which is why it will never be stable and hence never a real currency. Surely these bloodthirsty oligarchs would prefer their net worths not fluctuate wildly around pump-and-dump cycles.
That's the question for libertarianism: Just what do you want to do that law currently prevents you from doing? Is it really more than marginal changes, or are we in it for the real sick shit? The stuff people use crypto to buy?
And Progressivism is about only letting the anointed political class be monsters, like the Clintons.
Tony and those like him hate the idea that someone declared guilty of wrongthink or wrongspeak by the govt could continue to function in society.
We’re all Julian Assange.
By the government or the ADL or SPLC, without due process.
Hi Tony! Nice to see you back.
Just what do you want to do that law currently prevents you from doing?
Uh, access your own savings when a government decides to arbitrarily block your access to it without due process? Like Canada just did? Like the whole world is now attempting to do in Russia, even to Russians who don't support Putin's invasion of Ukraine?
So I'll take that as a yes.
To the contrary, that is what leftism is all about: to create a class of monsters with unlimited, unchecked power. That's what you want.
Libertarianism, on the other hand, puts tight controls on monsters.
Not at all. People do transact in crypto directly. The only reason it's not more common is because governments actively try to suppress it. Without government interference, crypto would quickly be taking over from fiat money.
Not be forced to pay several percent in transaction fees to government-mandated monopolies.
Not have my every purchase be tracked, data mined, shared, and sold to marketers.
Not having to fear having my financial life destroyed because I publicly stated a political opinion that is contrary to the political views, interests, or corruption of the financial provider that I'm forced to go through.
Of course, free people engaging in day-to-day economic transactions and free speech is what you would consider "real sick shit", Tony.
People aren't doing anything with crypto that they aren't doing with any other commodity that is used as money. Money isn't good or evil; it's just a medium of exchange. Why get so hysterical about it?
Trusting the government with total control of your money (in whatever form it takes) is going to take you places you don't want to go.
Issuing currency is literally one of the most basic functions of a government.
That is just as stupid as saying "defining proper sexual intercourse is literally one of the most basic function of a government". A lot of governments do it, but it is wrong and certainly not a proper function of government.
For most of history, individuals would trade by exchanging gold and silver as means of payments. Then two things happened. First, government claimed the right to determine and stamp the weight of units of gold and silver. And banks started accepting gold and silver deposits and issued deposit slips, which could then be traded. Then governments usurped that role and issued fiat money instead, but still gold backed. Now, governments just issue paper money with no backing.
According to prevailing libertarian sentiment, it seems that government should not issue currency but should tell Facebook who they must admit on their own property against their will.
Facebook only exists as the result of massive government subsidies and regulatory capture, it is subject to massive government control, and it is used for propaganda, censorship, and domestic and foreign spying by the government.
Facebook is about as much "private property" as IG Farben and Krupp were under the Nazi regime.
We've been disappointing this poor woman for 40 years.
IT WAS HER TURN!
I would have paid good money to see her tantrum when she realized Trump beat her. I heard it was epic.
I guess Hillary is upset she can't find a way to enrich her and Bill from 'Crypto Exchanges' !
I am disappointed that anyone thinks Hillary Clinton' opinions are worth airing.
It's Reason. What do you expect.
I'm disappointed the KleptoCapture task force hasn't targeted Hillary's assets yet.
Why does anyone care what this untalented cunt thinks?
She ran for president and lost to Obama. She ran and lost to Trump. The highest position she ever had was an appointment she was given as a consolation prize. The only thing she has ever done was be around or be fucking successful democrats.
I really could care less what a bitter loser thinks about a geopolitical situation.
Well, her and her husband regularly have people murdered and still have their hands on levers of power. So that’s a concern.
Worth mentioning also that the only reason she was ever in contention for the Democrat nomination in the first place was her scumbag rapist husband's coattails.
For all their faults, the greatest service that Obama or Trump ever did for our country was keeping that narcissistic harridan from the presidency, and we should all be grateful for that.
-jcr
First of all, I am ignorant and naive, so please be gentle.
We all hate fiat currencies because of their inflationary nature and big-government enabling debt creation.
But how is crypto not the fiat-est of them all? I mean, they literaly created somethig out of nothing by saying that the result of a hard computer calculation has value. It's true that it's non-inflationary. That's because it's getting harder and harder to make new coins. In fact, it's asymptotically approaching impossible.
But where does its value come from? Just the fact that it's got "scarcity"?
It is not that they are not fiat currency or not inflationary but that the mechanisms for such are disconnected from policy, politics and instead respond only to activity/demand.
There is no bitcoin bank manipulating the quantity available to cover a budget gap or mask the impact of a bad policy. There is a medium of exchange outside such manipulations that can be used globally despite the control impulses of govt types.
Those who complain the most about crypto, are those who understand it the least.
I'm not complaining. I'm just trying to understand.
I'd rather have monetary inflation determined by math than by politicians and bankers. It's worked out alright so far.
Edit: And the value comes from permissionless transfer of wealth to anybody with a wallet.
The properties of money are as a store of value, a unit of account, and a means of exchange. Crypto currencies can function as a unit of account and a means of exchange quite well, and free from government manipulation. As a store of value they are dicier, due to unpredictable trading swings, but they do work in the short term.
Privately issued currencies are not fiat currencies. That's because private entities cannot impose "fiats". It is the combination of government mandate with lack of backing that makes fiat currencies so destructive. That's because the government can debase the currency for political reasons and you have no choice but to keep using them.
Cryptocurrencies are not backed by gold (not because people wouldn't want it but because the US government prevents it), but their use is entirely voluntary, so if they get debased somehow, people just switch to something else.
If Hillary is disappointed, I'm in favor.
If Hillary was president we would be in a nuclear war by now.
Authoritarian is disappointed that someone, somewhere, may still enjoy some degree of freedom.
Because the best way to ensure that a nation picks a more reasonable leader, historically, is to destroy their economy to punish them for starting a war.
I, on the other hand, am not disappointed in Hillary Clinton: every day, she lives up to my expectation that she is an incompetent, greedy, corrupt psychopath.
Regardless of what HRT says, assuming these sanctions are lasting, we're just proving Russia's point and making a very strong case for an alt economy that isn't dependent upon approval of Western powers.
I hope creating lots of alternatives will be the outcome. I think global progressive elites have overplayed their hand and they are pissing off more and more people and creating more and more resistance.
You can see how stupid they are with the Canadian order to seize crypto accounts.
Who cares what this irrelevant, harridan has to say!
A cornered rattlesnake cannot speak, Grasshopper.
A man in WA State was bitten by the head of a rattlesnake. Detatched from the body.
No joke..he showed it on TV.
Hillary is disappointed whenever anyone but her enjoys a bit of liberty. I'm disappointed that she still is still at liberty - American citizens have gone to prison for long terms for much less serious mishandling of classified documents and information, but apparently the FBI and DOJ only prosecute unimportant people.