> One thing I've observed many times over the years is that the government likes to have its cake and eat it too
Just like the Bitcoin community, who to this day insist that Bitcoin is a legitimate alternative to 'cash money', then crow that they aren't subject to any of the existing laws governing 'cash money'?
Hello, I'm a Bitcoin community member, I can help clear this one up for you:
1) Bitcoin is claimed as a legitimate alternative to cash money insofar as: Bitcoin proponents believe that, if the world valued Bitcoin, it would function superbly as a money. So "legitimacy" here means "workable" or "beneficial" - it has nothing to do with legitimation by governments.
2) Many Bitcoin proponents are of the opinion that governments destroy wealth and hamper economic progress by trying to restrict and control the actions of people, in so doing preventing more organic and consensus-based mechanisms of social organisation emerging. Thus the argument that Bitcoin should not be subjected to existing cash laws is a) an attempt to prevent Bitcoin from early smothering by suspicious governmental authorities and b) an early-game strategy, the end game of which would be the significant or total disempowerment and/or disestablishment of government.
Just like the atheists, who to this day insist the lack of adherence to a religion is a legitimate alternative to spiritual guidance from the church, then crow that they're not subject to canon law?
Just like the Bitcoin community, who to this day insist that Bitcoin is a legitimate alternative to 'cash money', then crow that they aren't subject to any of the existing laws governing 'cash money'?