The law doesn't care whether it solves their problem. It doesn't make it lawful to circumvent banking regulations. Governments have bills to pay and it's illegal to disobey.
Using Bitcoin is not equivalent to circumventing banking regulations. Banking regulations concern money transmitters and banks. Since Bitcoin involves neither, those regulations do not apply, at least not for regular payments between individuals or businesses. It is therefore perfectly lawful for unbanked people to use Bitcoin, at least in most countries.
Yeah it's also not circumventing banking regulations to mail a beanie baby. What's your point?
I agree with that. Neither mailing beanie babies nor sending Bitcoin is "circumventing banking regulations". That was pretty much my point. What's yours?
That bitcoin and mailing beanie babies have no meaningful and lawful utility. By utility I mean benefit. It will be a dead giveaway that you're biased and intellectually dishonest if you ask for the definition of utility.
How do we establish the parameters for defining 'utility' in this context? I posit that if an individual finds value in Bitcoin (or Beanie babies) for legal purposes, it serves as an indication of its 'meaningful and lawful utility.' I, for one, belong to this category of users. It leads me to suspect that your interpretation of 'utility' might be deviating from the conventional understanding. Could you please elaborate? Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that what you really mean is that you don't personally have a use for Bitcoin in your own life?