> You could put your money in crypto where it can never be seized, should crypto be illegal?
Well...
> You could bury your money in a forest where it can never be seized, should shovels be illegal?
Or forests or remote places... obviously not.
> You can stab somebody with a knife, should knives be illegal?
OK, but guns or automatic guns makes this much easily reproducible at scale. And guns are indeed heavily regulated everywhere in the world (well, yeah, there is ONE exception...)
> You could fly to a foreign country, should flights be illegal?
You need a valid passport, pass several checks and you might be on some list and blocked from taking the plane (obviously there are way to hack that, that's not the point). Or denied access to the other country.
> You could discuss a crime in-person not over the internet, should private conversations be illegal?
No, but police can still spy you if they have reasonable (or not...) reasons to do so.
My point is: while I'm not OK with banning encryption or adding some backdoor to it, we cannot deny that the "at scale" differences are important enough to at least have an adult discussion about how the issue should be tackled. Dismissing it like many people in the tech world do is as naive as willing to ban it.