> Removing the hundreds of millions of people who were killed in the name of national security and the maintenance of political authority would not magically make them die for some other reason instead.

Citation needed. This institutionalized protection system is actually exactly how we got government in the first place.

But also, in the last 50 years, which hundreds of millions have died? If there's clear trajectory that deaths are decelerating, why are we now more than ever eager to overthrow the system?

> Whether you call providing the benefits of typical governments without their horrendous costs an iteration or a removal is semantics. My concern is that it gets done.

Again you only speak in terms of costs and refuse to speak to or quantify benefits. That's not an objective evaluation. It's like saying computers are bad because people get hacked, and therefore we should throw out computers and start over from the abacus. You must quantify the good and the bad to evaluate.

> You mean like being born economically so deep underwater it's impossible to ever even break even because of the economic mismanagement of your political authority wielding organisational unit? At least ledgers using those consensus mechanisms only levy debt on people who choose to participate.

I reject the former premise and the latter isn't a reason to participate in a distributed ledger system.

> It's clearly what a whole lot of people want, as to whether they need it or not, time will tell. For all the aforementioned reasons, I think the case couldn't be clearer that they do, however.

Respectfully disagree. The overwhelming majority of participants are just speculators. They couldn't care less so long as number go up. The overwhelming majority of holders bought on an exchange (off-chain) and never, ever transact. They may as well hold micro BTC futures.