> I can't think of any, except for financing entities operating outside lawful limits.

The idea is that "lawful limits", even if you wholeheartedly support them now, can change at a whim if a new government is elected or a war starts or some other major crisis happens. These things come and go every few decades, one is not improbable to occur within the frame of your lifetime and place of residence.

Hong Kong protestors were tracked by looking at their purchases of public transport tickets. Canada froze the bank accounts of those involved in protests also. Wikileaks had to rely on cryptocurrency for funding and donations could be tracked otherwise. From this I see a trend that shows it is critical for democracy, don't you?

i think the whole point for many is freedom from tyranny. just because there are laws around how you're allowed to store and move around things that you own doesn't mean those laws are morally or ethically well-founded.

Or anything that the government don't like. Like donation to an opposition, journalists, etc. That's why authoritarian governments are first to fight the financial privacy / independence.

When you use "society" as a synonym for "the establishment" there probably isn't one.

Never did much care for Rousseau myself though, or the fascists and communists he spawned.

It's obvious - freedom from pesky taxes, declaring your assets and profits, buying banned goods, avoiding sanctions on the dozens of dictatorships and autocracies across the world, allow buying and selling resources and weapons to and from sanctioned countries. The whole package :)

For example the fact that ruzzia ha such a stable budget for 3 years in row is not in a last part due to the token system, where they can trade with Iran, China, and others and launder tokens through UAE/SA/Qatar exchanges etc.