I agree 100%. However, it is theoretically possible that in some distant future, a future where government is tamed and no longer a threat the cost/benefit ratio will flip and it will be in societys best interest to tame anonymity to the point where it can be breached in the event of crime. Hence my remarks that I hope we someday progress to the point where we outgrow the need for anonymity. I do not expect that future to exist in the next several generations if ever.
I can't envision the threat of subjugation ever being eliminated in a human society for as long as the ability to oppress exists, it's a near statistical certainty that the desire and opportunity to oppress will eventually overlap, resulting in acts of oppression. For as long as humanity has existed people have coveted what they don't own. Even simple aspiration is a form of desire which can progress into greed and envy of others, which can further progress into oppression... What I'm getting at is that the risk cannot be removed due to basic human nature, it's never wise or a good idea to confront problems with a "reactionary" policy when the problem could have simply been prevented with prior planning.
Yes, the day may come where we don't "need" protection from the government, but to cast off that protection as if we will "never again need it in the future" would be foolish and self-destructive. Financial anonymity is one such form of protection that we should never cast off.
It is easy for government to crush or at least severely suppress an anonymous currency in the physical economy. Attaching long prison times for accepting payment in said currency and then sending out lots of undercover agents who try to buy things would do the trick.
It is in the digital realm, however, where the seller does not have to physically deliver goods but can anonymously deliver data/analysis/programming that anonymity becomes very difficult for governments to deal with. The thesis is that overtime this digital/knowledge economy will grow to dominate the overall economy while the physical economy progressively shrinks into relative insignificance.
I've heard of this potential scenario before and I'm happy to say that the government can't do that so easily in the US or in other armed societies... In the US, financial expression is protected under the First and Fifth Amendments. Spending money is a form of speech, and money is a form of property when possessed. Money is any medium for the exchange of value... If the government made a law criminalizing a lawful form of expression (not causing undue harm; yelling "fire" in a theater, slander, etc...") it would simply cross the line into totalitarianism and make anonymity that much more desirable. The government is just a group of loosely associated individuals following orders from somebody higher up the chain; it's not likely the government would be able to enforce the unconstitutional law without weakening itself because the majority of the government employees will oppose totalitarian laws. The population has limits to what they'll accept; just start persecuting innocent people for buying a coffee with an anonymous currency and see what happens when that acceptable limit is breached by even a small percentage of society...
People are armed for few reasons more necessary or important than to abolish or reform oppressive or inadequate governments...
I agree that my analysis of the negative vector of crime is not holistic and does not weigh the potential gains of anonymity. However, it would be disingenuous to claim that all vectors introduced by anonymity are positive ones. When looked at holistically I agree the overall benefits of anonymity outweigh the costs. Nevertheless there are costs. It is the responsibility of those seeking to introduce new vectors into society to analyze their negative aspects and (to the degree possible) mitigate them.
Your philosophical argument above is an oversimplification in that statism is itself natural. It arises spontaneously from any group of interacting individuals. Statist suppression of behavior deemed aberrant or detrimental to group survival is also natural and spontaneously occurring. Over time on a macro level statism can and sometimes does dictate what is natural. If statist pressure is significant enough and maintained over a long enough time horizon aberrance is reduced and in certain instances can even be driven to extinction.
I would consider the cost of an anonymous currency to be net neutral since there are already alternative methods of anonymous exchange. The use technology to simplify anonymity shouldn't factor into the equation since the same level of anonymity is already possible in society using tangible currencies. Adding an alternative method for financial anonymity will therefore make no difference.
The above regarding statist suppression only aplies in small scale isolated societies where the leader can be chosen or overthrown by the group if necessary. Scale it up and you'll observe ever increasing levels of resistance with "too many chiefs and not enough Indians." So yes, it is natural in isolated macro economies where top down control is manageable, but it falls apart when the complexity of the economy increases to the point where it cannot be controlled from the top down... The system will inevitably collapse as the control mechanisms become ineffective...
I envision local, townhall direct hands on government (where you know every body within your Dunbar number limit) will be the surviving and thriving form of limited government that I envision will be enabled and sustained by the paradigm I promoted in my prior 3 posts.
I can dream can't I?]
It is a beautiful dream.
Unfortunately, I also have a hard time envisioning this scenario lasting very long due to the same "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" problem (local governmental bodies being the "chiefs.") Local governments won't always agree with their neighboring areas. State governments were formed with their own sets of laws as a solution to this problem. The previous alternative was to invade your neighbor and subjugate them to the will of your local government while abolishing theirs... There is also the issue of international arrangements and treaties.
For as long as greed and envy exist in humanity there will always be a need for a national government. It is absolutely critical however, that the government remain no more than a servant of its own people tasked with preventing State over-reach, matters regarding interstate commerce, and international affairs. The Federal Government should have absolutely no power to make laws directed towards individual citizens; that power should remain solely in State and local hands. Limiting the power of the Federal Government is the first step towards local governance, strong communities, and economic prosperity.
In my opinion, the Federal Government should have only the legal authority to determine by electoral consensus which laws the States "may not" impose on the people; such is the purpose of the Bill of Rights.
I think the early United States was the closest that mankind has ever come to the perfection of government. We can look at US history and see clearly the causes and effects which led to this colossal failure and work to reform a new government which will maintain the strengths and benefits of the original, while additionally implementing new safety measures to prevent a recurrence of this manner of failure in the future.