It gets to a point where you have to start asking yourself who it really serves to demonise surveillance, tax (military spending) in the West
Discussion
Ya there's a neverending pushback of centralized and decentralized forces. Like, camera surveillance for a grocery store is fine and it makes sense. Though I draw lines regarding surveillance from a purely tech perspective. I know I draw some lines about what's ok for me to do in regards to decentralized tech but that's more a personal "don't" than "the tech needs to be limited."
In regards to taxes in the west, man I would love it if we were on a Bitcoin standard. Then maybe we could become educated about issues that the government could help with and we could vote with our tax money effectively. If someone doesn't agree they don't have to pay the tax. Taxes could actually function and work properly according to what the people deem reasonable. As long as the people can be reasonable. Which might also be a tall task in and of itself. At least this could be a systematic nudge towards something better.
My point is I wouldn’t like to run the experiment of voluntary tax, find out that that number donated is basically zero, and then get invaded and slaughtered by an invading army since you don’t have an army anymore

There is so much naivety on this platform. Lots of critique and few proposed solutions.
Hm, that's sounds highly probable and lots of people already don't pay taxes. You make a good point. With voluntary tax you could have a weak military. So the alternative is enforced mandatory tax. But could that be a slippery slope towards fiat currency and tax via inflation? I think you've thought about it this more than me, so I'm curious and open to listen.
What about a hard fork in bitcoin that sets say 1% of all mined bitcoin and puts it in a pot, to be allocated in a way that is consensus approved in the hard fork (at a minimum; enforcement of transactions and remediation/ disincentives for bad actors). Not foolproof but satoshi wanted to go from 15-30% government spending to 0% which is kind of so beyond what we have evolved to cope with and also means there is no centralised force to combat other centralised forces (eg current governments) other than what people give voluntarily.
A hard fork is usually a very huge step. So we'll need to really think very carefully about something like this. Why do we need a hard fork in this case? How would this benefit people in differing regions with different governments? As for what Satoshi would have wanted, I haven't looked for any quotes regarding this particular issue. But does it necessarily matter what Satoshi would have wanted? He made the way, gave it away, and then went away.
I have to assume that everything Snowden says serves Russia. Otherwise, Siberia for him.