People should have the human right to use their money anonymously in ways that they want, as an abstraction of cash, as an abstraction of human value.
As society, we've decided peoples individual rights can/should be curtailed when they harm others. We will never agree on definition of "harm". But, certainly money can be used for harm. From I pay someone to kill you, to I donate money to group government has labeled "terrorist", to we made profit polluting environment, etc.
Why should we have the inalienable right to exchange goods and services, no matter what the goods and services are?
Why is that an important tenet of a prosperous and free society? It hasn’t ever been one, and we’ve done well so far.
We have given up some of that sovereignty in order to live in a govt. We should ask if giving up the right to free exchange is necessary for the functioning of our society.
please pick the point on that line where my rights should end and I should be submitted to bureaucracy, KYC, etc.
In the case of finance, it is easier and more effective to delegate the bankers to keep tabs on who is moving (large sums of) money around and refuse service to anyone that seems suspicious. With regards to email providers, no similar nexus exists.
You can best believe that if email providers were registered and licensed and the issue of people using email to commit crimes were sufficiently pronounced, having them scan all emails for suspicious activity would be seriously considered (and there would be a good argument for it).
One is when you knowingly become a broker that sits between the two parties.
The value that your currency holds while you own it is based on the current market rate and is inherently tied to everyone of the currency owners. (It is true that yes, other commodities also work via market forces, but they're inherently different as they aren't abstractions and have inherent value to them.)
To not get into the weeds, your rights end when your actions start to affect other people, so limitations on how currency can be used are put in place. Using a shared currency is a type of social contract that you bind yourself when using it. Society has over the years observed how shared currencies work and set limits on the freedom of use to limit abuse.
And to drive the point home, governments have seen that cryptocurrencies are used for abuse, so they're making steps that limit your rights to exchange their currency directly to crypto to inherently decouple their currencies value from their currency.
To get around this, you'll have to convince your employer to pay you in commodities and you to sell your physical items via cryptocurrency. Like how traditional currencies were originally designed to do. The market for exchanging physical goods or other services set the rate for a currency. But unfortunately the inherent unregulated nature of crypto made it ripe for abuse, also the unregulated and rampant speculation of the value made it infeasible to use as a traditional currency.
TL;DR: Currency is a type of social contract, your rights end when your actions start to affect other people negatively.