> Why don't you use the traditional banking system, which doesn't result in publicly listed transactions?
You mean the banking system that freezes protesters' accounts when they do something doubleplusungood?
Personal choices that don't violate the rights of others shouldn't require any explanation to retain your rights. But it's not hard to think of a lot of reasons for somebody to use crypto over banks besides the state not being able to trivially shut you out of your life. There's other good reasons to choose crypto over banks, but that's a good one in my book.
Exchanges could freeze any crypto you deposit with them and seize any UTXOs originating from your wallet just as easily. That's another reason to avoid crypto, having to worry about where it came from.
And I struggle to find a legitimate use case for being required to share anything whatsoever with any authority without a court order.
There is a huge difference between sharing the details of your finances with a tax or other authority by default and them being able to compel you to provide such information if they have good cause to believe (and convince a court) that you are evading taxes.
The fact the government required six illegitimate things of me before breakfast does not make them legitimate, it just means the abuse has become normalised to the point that people start believing this shit is reasonable.
I assume you mean the overturning of and the lengths to which certain states appear to be going in order to determine whether women have attempted to have now-illegal abortions?
I'd agree that's a pretty reasonable example of why we still need the ability to pay for things in an untraceable manner and why to object to any attempt to phase out cash as a legitimate method of payment.
But I'd also much rather have constitutional protections that don't allow governments to declare consensual surgical procedures on your own body to be illegal.
> But I'd also much rather have constitutional protections that don't allow governments to declare consensual surgical procedures on your own body to be illegal.
Interesting concept, but a few quick thoughts on this.
1) I'd only point out that there exists a point of view that that says that a baby's body is a separate life from a woman's body.
2) Such a constitutional protection would open up some very complicated issues when it comes to children, particularly with regards to sexuality.
3) Many of the same people who very eloquently speak out on personal choice in some medical matters "lost the plot" during Covid. Who can credibly make this argument and advocate for such a policy credibly?
Well I have no desire to turn this into an abortion debate, but it certainly concerns me how easy it is in a country like the US for governments to criminalise women's personal health decisions. But mainly it is a reminder that there likely will always be legitimate reasons to hide your activities from authorities in certain cases.
> 1) I'd only point out that there exists a point of view that that says that a baby's body is a separate life from a woman's body.
By that point of view it would be reasonable to separate both bodies if one of them wishes to be left alone, so both can move on with their lifes. Equal rights.
The vast majority of the time, you don't need a wire transfer. And if your debit/credit card doesn't work on the weekend, you need a new bank; That's not the fault of banking as a whole.
Sure. But, examples like buying a high end guitar off criagslist, or a car from a private party, aren't less of a use case because they aren't every day transactions.
I struggle to find a legitimate use case for hiding transactions from your bank and thus tax authority (assuming a developed country).