If people start turning stuff over in BTC then this starves the government of funds and they will no longer be able to provide public goods like schools and sidewalks and traffic lights, in the UK they will no longer be able to pay nurses and doctors or send dole-money or money for unemployed single mothers of small children. For me this is a bad thing.
Government does a terrible job of providing public services such as roads and sidewalks.
Here is a real life example: I used to live on a narrow residential street where a lot of families with young children lived. The families were very concerned about their children's safety, because a small number of inconsiderate drivers were using the street as a "rat run" and speeding through at 50-70 km/h. The street became a very stressful, menacing place to live, and so the families proposed turning it into a "living street" with a 10 km/h speed limit, park benches, flower beds, and so on. This proposal was accepted almost unanimously among the residents, and the impact on city traffic flow would have been negligible because it was not a main traffic artery.
Note: There seems to be a pattern in economics that when anything is offered for "free", a small number of anti-social rogues takes shameless advantage of it to the detriment of a considerate majority - you call that social justice?
Anyhow, the residents ended up lobbying the city council for almost a decade before anything was done. Meanwhile, a whole generation of overweight sedentary children grew up because the parents were too scared to let them ride a bike in front of the house.
First the city council rejected it on bureaucratic grounds. There are top-down, inflexible regulations on how roads are "supposed" to be utilised, completely ignoring the diversity of local preferences and needs.
Then the city council rejected it on political grounds. The mayor's financial sponsors were mainly people who lived outside the city and just commuted through central neighbourhoods for work or shopping. It was not in their interest to promote "living streets".
In a more anarchist society this issue would have been resolved within weeks. One possible scenario: Since the parents care passionately about this issue, they all would have chipped in and purchased the street and run it as a cooperative where they can set their own rules. Ok, there are now a handful of commuters who can no longer take the shortest path to their workplace at a high speed, but do they really care enough about losing 10 seconds commute time to purchase back the street (among themselves) at an even higher price than the concerned parents are prepared to pay?