I would assert the already powerful gain more power from the absence of regulation; forcing them to set rules — imperfect a process as that is — is less bad than anarchy, which seems to often degenerate into handing all the power very quickly to the worst people.
I’m not “free” to go on a machine gun rampage, this lack of freedom isn’t “being oppressed”, and as it applies to everyone it stops other people doing it to me.
So I know you’re being sarcastic, but yes, for some things more freedom directly causes oppression.
I assert that letting power-hungry tax evaders get away with it is in that category.
I'll allow that my characterization was mildly hyperbolic. However there's some truth there. You're stretching when you compare people voluntarily consuming products or services with violence. If this is the comparison you need to make, I think it is illustrative of where the argument is going. The clincher is that regulations, taxes or outright prohibitions of cryptocurrencies will be enforced with violence.
More directly, if some villainousentrepreneur manages to protect his wealth from government confiscation, that is freedom. Confiscation under the threat of violence can hardly be construed as "freedom".
Consider the origins of freedom. Are freedoms granted by government? Where does it stem from? Who is entitled to the value you add to a marketplace? Is a market a zero sum game?
> The clincher is that regulations, taxes or outright prohibitions of cryptocurrencies will be enforced with violence.
Hence my references to anarchy. All governments are the definers of legitimate force and to whom their local monopoly of it can be deputised.
> Are freedoms granted by government?
Yes.
> Where does it stem from?
Game theory, economics, and the occasional threat of other people doing violence against the stuff they (the powerful) like.
> Who is entitled to the value you add to a marketplace?
Nobody, including the creator of that value. The creators of value are only rewarded with it because a system vastly bigger than any single human has temporarily settled on a local equilibrium where that is the motivation.
Entitlements only exists with respect to legal frameworks and with enforcement mechanisms, not by themselves.
> Is a market a zero sum game?
They can be, they can also be negative or positive sum games. Messing with currencies is often a negative, because it creates opportunities to defect that otherwise don’t exist.
I own a flat. It’s collecting rent. If the economy goes up and all else is equal, I collect more rent (more money in the system for fixed supply); if home construction increases, I collect less (more supply for fixed money in the system). This income is entirely due to what the government in charge of the area decides to motivate, not how much I put into maintaining the place. Similarly: the profitability of Nissan in the UK is determined by what sort of trade deal the UK and the EU have; Facebook, GDPR-style and safe harbour laws; SpaceX, national security laws; Saudi Aramco, global oil policy; and so on.
None of us stands alone (assuming nobody here has a von Neumann probe), and tax evasion is Nash-defection.
Like most, I find the former are the ones who most wrankle, but I don’t actually know which is worse. I have heard that one of Greece’s big economic problems is too many ordinary people think tax is for suckers (and absent full automation we can’t all live on a beach, sale of doge or otherwise). I don’t even know if that’s an accurate depiction of Greece, but it’s certainly compatible with human nature, and the tragedy of the commons comes in many forms.
