[themetrician]

I'm the next person and to me you don't seem such a big fan of freedom as I am.

The reason I am for anonymous money is that it is of no one else's business what I do with my money. It's really that simple.

EDIT: David Friedman wrote a good piece on the misuse of "externality" arguments that every Freedom-loving person should know (and I'd be surprised if lisper did not know of it): http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Machinery_3d_Edition/The%20Mis...

[davnicwil]

The only purpose of money is to trade work and the captured value of work with other people, therefore it is by definition always someone else's business what you do with your money.

But I know what you mean, you don't want non-directly-involved third parties to know about transactions you make. But then there are always contracts, laws and regulations you must follow and be held to account on. These are the things which bind the economy together and make modern civilisation work.

Your bank balance and the things you buy with your money do not exist in a vacuum. There will always be a trail of your spending left behind anyway, even if it's just asking the people you bought things from what you bought and when. It's an inescapable fact deeply embedded into the nature of what money is, and the function it serves in society.

[ska]

Nobody else's business so long as you aren't committing fraud or breaking a contract, aren't avoiding alimony or other legal commitments, have paid (all of) your taxes, haven't stolen it, aren't money laundering, etc. Not quite so simple after all.

What is basically desirable is that (some kinds of) transactions can be made anonymously.

[lisper]

> you don't seem such a big fan of freedom as I am

I think you might be surprised.

> it is of no one else's business what I do with my money

If you use your money to, say, hire a hit man to kill me, how is that not my business?

> It's really that simple.

No, it's really not that simple at all. You should read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality