Recently, Saylor said that crypto anarchists are paranoid, and defends the state and regulations.
But my question is: who is more radical - someone fighting for freedom and responsibility for everyone or the one who sneakily takes a chunk of your hard-earned cash through taxes and tightly tries to control every aspect of your private life?
Let's break it down. The first person believes in giving power back to individuals, letting them decide what's best for their lives without interference from a central gang of phycos. How can this be radical? Doesn't it makes sense? Isn't it fully moral and (should be) normal?
On the other hand, we have someone who relies on force and coercion and extreme violence (even war) through robbery (taxation) and regulation to gain and maintain control. And they do so meticulously that it can be considered pure paranoia. They might not be seen as "radicals", but that's a pretty extreme stance if you ask me!
Have we not been brainwashed to believe in something that is actually extremely immoral and senseless? Isn't the government the real radical paranoid thing here?