[jvdizzle]

It's one thing to be a techno-anarchist and it's another thing to be reasonably skeptical about government and what it considers "justice" and the ramifications of that "justice".

The way the government has been approaching cryptography and privacy in general is very much "throw the baby out with the bath water, we don't need it". What is happening in the financial privacy space (i.e. developments in crypto) should be alarming to anyone who believes in democracy, in my opinion.

[AlexandrB]

Financial privacy has little to do with democracy and at the extreme would be its antithesis. Absolute financial privacy would mean that moneyed interests could quietly buy any legislation they want and the public would be none the wiser because the funding/bribe would be untraceable and unknowable. See Citizens United[1] for an example of how extending human rights to money has negative consequences for democratic society.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Edit: I don't get why financial privacy is consistenly presented as a win for the "little guy" against "the man". The "little guy" spends most of his money on necessities and pays moderate to low taxes relative to other parts of society. The parties standing to win the most in a world where any transactions can easily be kept private are those that wield a lot of money, a lot of power, or both. Consider Nancy Pelosi's insider trading and how hard it would be to discover/prove if those transactions could be kept private.