[ObscureMind]

The American Revolution was partly sparked by the "Tea Act" of 1773, which imposed taxes on tea without colonial representation. The colonists saw this as unjust. Fast forward to today, and many people seem to accept high taxes on goods and services as necessary, while viewing tax exemptions as undeserved or privileged.

Perhaps everything deserves a tax exemption, especially cryptocurrency, which operates independently of government control and doesn’t rely on state structures to function.

[Fezzik]

Which courts hear disputes regarding crytpo currencies? Which law enforcement officers investigate crimes related to crypto currencies? Which grids power mining? You live in a very dark bubble if you think crypto currencies are somehow operating outside of all the benefits of a society.

[ObscureMind]

If every government worldwide were to forget about or ban cryptocurrencies entirely, they would still persist.

Governments, in this case, offer nothing essential to the functioning of cryptocurrencies. Cryptos are essentially just digital numbers transferred across the internet, their existence sustained purely by individuals investing their time, resources, and trust. Their value and continued operation are independent of government control, investment, infrastructure, or approval.

[cadamsau]

While I agree with what you’re saying in the first order, what would actually happen is pretty predictable - an even more extreme version of what we’re seeing with scams, lost wallets, pump & dump schemes, fake ICOs and people taking advantage of each other with impunity.

Cryptos are simple but cryptoCURRENCY - where the rubber hits the road and the numbers on the internet become useful - is anything but.

[binarycrusader]

cryptocurrency, which operates independently of government control and doesn’t rely on state structures to function.

It magically manifests itself through the ether? It doesn’t rely on profligate amounts of cheap electricity and the infrastructure required to support data centers?

It doesn’t rely on governments that provide a legal and financial system that supports exchange into actual monetary value that the real world requires to operate?

Claiming cryptocurrency doesn’t rely on state structure completely ignores the existing state structures that are required to enable the complex scheme that’s needed to enable its use.

As they say, “we live in a society.”

[ObscureMind]

While it's true that cryptocurrencies rely on electricity and infrastructure, this doesn’t inherently tie them to government control or the state in the same way as traditional fiat systems.

Cryptocurrencies, by design, function on decentralized networks that don't require the direct oversight or approval of any government. The electricity and hardware used for mining and transaction validation may come from existing infrastructure, but that infrastructure doesn’t need to be state-controlled in the same way that a national currency system is. Individuals and private enterprises can choose to power crypto networks using renewable energy sources, local power grids, or even off-grid systems, making them more flexible and adaptable to a variety of environments, independent of centralized authorities.

As for the legal and financial systems that facilitate exchange into fiat currency, these are not an intrinsic part of cryptocurrency's functionality. Cryptocurrencies are used as a medium of exchange and store of value in numerous jurisdictions without the need for state-backed systems. Peer-to-peer exchanges and decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms allow users to trade, lend, and borrow without relying on traditional financial institutions or government regulation. In fact, the very appeal of cryptocurrency is that it offers an alternative to centralized systems, providing financial autonomy outside the control of national governments or banks.

The idea that cryptocurrencies “need” government structures is a misunderstanding of their decentralized nature. While state-backed systems provide a safety net or a point of conversion, they are not essential to the existence of cryptocurrencies themselves. In fact, governments’ involvement often comes with regulation, restrictions, and sometimes outright hostility — yet cryptocurrencies continue to thrive in regions with little or no government support.

Yes, we live in a society, but part of the reason cryptocurrencies have gained traction is because they challenge the monopoly that governments and traditional financial systems have on money, banking, and trade. In essence, cryptocurrencies operate as a parallel system that doesn’t depend on state authority to function.

[joshuamorton]

> The idea that cryptocurrencies “need” government structures is a misunderstanding of their decentralized nature.

Cryptocurrency benefits from existing structures. Many of which are government supported. Taking without paying due is immoral.

> but part of the reason cryptocurrencies have gained traction is because they challenge

Yes, but they do not supercede existing systems and until they do, they are party to them.

[Taters91]

No it didn't. The Tea Act removed duties on the East India Company, removed the need to go to the London Tea Auction, and just required a deposit for the importer.

[ObscureMind]

I would acknowledge that the Tea Act itself did not introduce new taxes, but instead retained an existing tax from the Townshend Acts. The real concern for many colonists was the principle of being taxed at all by a distant government. The Tea Act gave the East India Company a monopoly on tea imports, effectively removing the ability of colonial merchants to participate in the trade, and forcing colonists to buy taxed tea. This move was seen as an attempt by Britain to assert greater control over colonial commerce through taxation by making the colonies dependent on the British-controlled East India Company.

For many colonists, the Tea Act was part of a broader frustration with what they viewed as excessive and unwarranted taxation on goods they needed, like tea. They objected not just to the specific tea tax, but to any form of taxation that they felt was imposed without their consent, and that undermined their economic freedom. This frustration eventually culminated in the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, which was a protest against both the specific tax on tea and the broader issue of unfair taxation—whether or not they had direct representation in Parliament.

[Taters91]

Yup, that's the general feeling among the colonists that were revolutionary. Most of the colonists felt they were not being treated like British citizens, and they resented the inequity. Taxation was not the issue: it was the lack of political participation they could have.

Also, they did not see it as a violation of their "economic freedom," as that concept was not really around in the 1700s. They objected to the violation of the British constitution, which meant their rights as British subjects were violated. Taxes were fine by them, as long as they had a voice in Parliament, which they did not have.

[amadeuspagel]

Crypto relies on state structures to prevent wrench attacks[1].

[1]: https://xkcd.com/538

[oceanplexian]

Most Americans have things a lot more dangerous than a wrench for self defense that work perfectly fine without the government.