> Imo, people afraid of the Government and wanting to drastically limit its power are a bit like anti-vaxer
I should remind you that 11 months ago, Donald Trump became the head of what's arguably the most powerful government in the world. I'm glad there are restrictions on the power of that government and very much concerned that they're not stringent enough.
While I do have some sympathy for anarchist positions, I don't think a complete abolition of government as we know it is likely to be pretty. That certainly doesn't mean government should have unlimited power. If we're using the last century or so to source our examples, the governments we've seen fail with disastrous results had fewer limits on their power than those that are still with us.
100% agree with the fact that governments need limits, but I also disagree with the idea of removing all kind of monetary power from the hands of governments, it's just too helpful and achieving the same goals without it would be much more dramatic : if you think inflation is spoliation, what do you think about actually confiscating assets or properties ? In troubled times, a government will do anything necessary to keep its power and if he doesn't have access to monetary tools, things are going to be much worse, and the majority will be behind it.
People tend to think that the free market won against socialism, but it did not : welfare state won against socialism ! People being happier, they didn't want the revolution, but if a government can't buy social peace it's going to be replaced by someone who will do it. That's exactly the kind of mindset that made Trump president of the US (America first, no more globalization), and the fact that he is betraying his promises won't change the fact that a huge chunk of the population want some dramatic change (even at the expense of a lot of important things).
> but I also disagree with the idea of removing all kind of monetary power from the hands of governments
I don't have enough expertise or moral authority to say for sure whether that would be good or not. Governments fought very hard to get substantially increased monetary power during the 20th century, and the world that followed is a pretty good place. For all the bad news we hear, violence, starvation, disease and other metrics of badness are near historic lows. Some attribute those gains largely to government action, but I think a lot of the improvements were social and technological. As an example, better access to information makes people aware that those who employ violence usually don't get good results, so others are less likely to do so.
What I do feel fairly confident in saying is that for better or worse, it's fairly likely to happen. Here's the approximate scenario I see playing out:
First, a cryptocurrency becomes somewhat popular for actual use as a currency. It won't be Bitcoin. It might not even be one that exists yet, but it will happen sooner or later. It need not be universally accepted, but if you can buy groceries, fuel and a cup of coffee in most major cities on one or more continents, that will be sufficient.
Next, there needs to be a financial crisis affecting that continent. These happen every couple decades. It's a near certainty. Bonus points for runs on banks, slowness or failure of protection mechanisms like FDIC, rapid inflation or political instability.
The next step is that people start using the cryptocurrency in preference to the government currency, banks and payment cards. Of course, the government might want to prevent this, but any actual attempt at enforcing a ban would meet great resistance from the significant fraction of the population already using it.
I'm not sure what follows. I have little doubt that parts of the transition will be quite ugly. I hope the improvements the world has made survive it.
I should remind you that 11 months ago, Donald Trump became the head of what's arguably the most powerful government in the world. I'm glad there are restrictions on the power of that government and very much concerned that they're not stringent enough.
While I do have some sympathy for anarchist positions, I don't think a complete abolition of government as we know it is likely to be pretty. That certainly doesn't mean government should have unlimited power. If we're using the last century or so to source our examples, the governments we've seen fail with disastrous results had fewer limits on their power than those that are still with us.