I don't think "I don't want to go cashless because I want to conduct criminal activity anonymously" is very convincing.
Heyzeus, I'm wary that people could reasonably be making this kind of argument.
In an authoritarian nightmare, sure.
But in most places, that's the deal with the law, it's not a perfect fit.
If you allow people to define it as they think it should be, it's not going to work.
There's is a 100% chance that someone in your neighbourhood thinks he should be able to keep machine guns and more advanced weapons for whatever reasons. And probably some who think that if you are on their property for whatever reason, they can use 'lethal force'.
Etc..
That's why we don't get to say "I want to use crypto for the criminal things that I don't think should be criminal!"
Obviously proportionality applies, but still.
I'm wary of government oversight, but it's best if we as citizens try to be a bit responsible with the systems we have at our disposal.
That said, I'm not sure someone having a bit of weed should freak anyone out (i.e. proportionality).
Both are common beliefs where I am and I happen to agree with them.
I don’t think this is a fair example, it negatively characterizes legal hypotheticals.
What? What@@!@
Hardly, people not listening to the warning of libertarians got us into this mess.
Libertarians have been very accurate to the consequences of government largess, and at every turn people ignore the results of government programs doubling down claiming that not enough money was spent, or not enough power was ceased, or a loop hole was really the problem
No libertarianism did not cause this mess, far far far from it