"Why we have States now" is as much a product of historical accident as some inherent law of nature. Yale historian James C. Scott wrote several books about this in the historical context of medieval Southeast Asia.

"Take and defend" reflects a contingent condition in which States have (a) the ability to credibly project coercive authority over some geographic area and (b) populations engaging in legible economic activity from which said States can derive taxation.

Bitcoin, among other technologies, starts to change this. The more economic activity moves into the anonymous, semi-anonymous, and uncensorable realm of crypto/Bitcoin, the less capability States will have to tax and ultimately rule.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Bitcoin is neither anonymous nor uncensorable. There are plenty of blacklisted addresses already. The state doesn’t need to apply technology to censor - just force or the threat of force.

Things aren't absolute. It's orders of magnitude more anonymous and uncensorable than the fiat money system. That's a huge change from the current system if anything like mass adoption occurs.

And "blacklisted addresses" -- I'm sure they exist on Coinbase or whatever, but are you saying those addresses won't have transactions mined? I seriously doubt it...

It would be pretty hard even in a wide adoption scenario to avoid having an address tied to some traceable transaction- ether though a personal interaction or an online order.

It’s common for people to focus on the technical details while ignoring the social ones. Most hacks are not technical and involve social engineering. Bitcoiners fall for this too, focusing on how they will be technical private while ignoring all of the barriers that can be put in place on the legislative / social side. And sometimes just by stoking fear.