I'm for expansive, but limited versions of these things.
I think your love letters should be private from the gov't, I don't think your income should be private from the gov't.
I think nearly everyone should be able to own a rifle, but I don't think any private citizen should be able to own a tank.
There are many aspects of life where I think the costs outweigh the benefits for citizen in society. Since there are trivial numbers of alternatives, I see a highly anonymized digital store of value as bad for the public welfare. The limit is typically where public access to the good is necessary to prevent tyranny, but universal access causing a tyranny of the minority is typically the where things should be illegal.
I think the conditions in which Monero would benefit society existed, the legality of Monero would be irrelevant.
how much damage is and has been done through the traditional institutions/methods/tracking/privacy-invasion you are advocating in totalitarian regimes today and throughout history?
Historical institutions are totalitarian monarchies. The modern democratic institutions are the exception, not the rule.
I'm not saying Monero shouldn't exist, I'm saying those of us in a free society should want it to be illegal in our free society. Again, it's legality in an unfree society is essentially irrelevant to it's practicality.
How about saying a large chunk of the population don't want to benefit because there will be a tiny percentage misusing it against them. Lots of rights and freedoms are not wanted because we don't want our neighbors to have them too. We encode them as laws.
So you're saying 99.9% of the population shouldn't benefit from this because there will be a tiny percentage misusing it?
I take it you're against privacy, encryption and gun ownership too then right?