by @smithcasey on Doug Casey's Take
![Doug Casey's Take [ep.#249] Kevin O'Leary: Rotten Fascist? or Just Gutless?](https://images.hive.blog/768x0/https://vigilante.tv/lazy-static/previews/0f185583-1531-4bfb-a106-e0bf106d61c7.jpg)
To learn more about our private member service, Doug Casey's Phyle visit https://phyle.co
In today's episode we discuss the RESTRICT ACT and the dire consequences for freedom it represents. Then Doug explains why it is that so called "Free market capitalists" like Kevin O'leary are so eager for government intervention (when it's good for them, of course).
Join our email list to get Special reports and updates:
https://dougcasey.substack.com/about
Connect with us on Telegram: https://t.me/dougcasey
Alternative channel https://vigilante.tv/c/doug_caseys_take/
...
Regardless of whether this particular bill passes, this is the toothpaste coming out of the tube. If the bill fails, parts of it will be reintroduced, likely under cover of some other meek-sounding bill, and pass into law in that manner. This will be interesting for crypto, no? What about exchanges that also have "adversaries" as customers? I think that this could (and will) be used to persecute crypto traders (and maybe even holders) as well.
It may not be used immediately, or en masse, but if these provisions pass and aren't immediately struck down by the Supremes, it will enable any crypto holder to be targeted for transacting with 'adversaries', be labeled a 'domestic adversary', and relegated to Gitmo - if they survive at all. Since transactions include any ever undertaken, and any able to be in the future, all that is necessary to render one liable to such oppression is possessing crypto. Even I, who have never once transacted in crypto, because I hold Hive, would be liable under the Restrict Act to being disappeared in secret. Further, I suspect that voting on Hive, because that amounts to a crypto transaction by directing inflation from the rewards pool to content creators, would be able to be considered a transaction anyway. I think I have cast ~90k votes. Surely one of the recipients could be labeled an 'adversary'.
Anyone with any device that comprises the IoT will similarly be liable to the same oppression. Those devices like refrigerators, TVs, routers, modems, microwaves, washing machines, cars, and etc., connect to the internet and deliver surveillance information to whomever made the device, or owns the rights to the data, any and all of whom can be declared secretly to be 'adversaries', making the owner or user of such devices 'adversaries' and able to be disappeared on a whim.
The USA has long had the authority to rendition terrorists in secret. Obama actually assassinated an American citizen by drone strike against whom no accusation of wrong doing was ever made. The victim was a child. That happened in 2016 in Yemen.
It's far more significant than crypto. It's basically arbitrary power to disappear people without potential legal consequence or even knowledge of it having happened at all.
I don't think this bill is necessary for true believers in the Jacobin ideology currently ruling the West, including the USA today to be happily willing to act on the same information in the same way. I think it is only necessary to convince their sycophants that it's legal and therefore mandatory, which will increase the numbers of those willing to disappear people that dare to consider themselves free, or even just not the personal possessions of overlords.