I think the right order is Ethical -> Legal -> Permissionless
There are many permissionless things that no one will indulge in becuase they are either unethical or illegal . For example "Stealing" is permissionless but no one does it cuz it is neither ethical nor Legal ..
That said - I do agree I don't understand bitcoin as much as you might be, but I sure know that Ethical and Legal aspects are human-centric .. software (or tools) can't be a proxy for these ..
And the funny thing is bitcoin is ethically and legally allowed - and it is permission-less -- it is the best so far .. at least the ones I know of ..
I'm saying if one will only ever use it in a "law-abiding", "rule-following" way then I can't see why you would want to use Bitcoin. Maybe temporarily as a glorified NGU stock that you only hold? While you still can that is, before it is taxed to hell and the regulators become more entrenched.
But digital fiat is much better for staying within the lines as far as transactions go.
I tend to disagree - there is HUGE scope of improvement as far as an Ethical , Legal and sound asset are concerned - for example today most usable assets are highly inflated because rich want to hoard buildings and stocks - if that money is moved to Bitcoin , home ownership will increase many fold - and poor will be able to participate in market economics (stock market) ..
#Bitcoin does offer an easy path to migrate to favorable jurisdictions in case one apprehends a dispute - You can't easily move a building (or even stocks) but you can technically move anywhere with your cold wallet - in a legal fashion - before the water gets over the head. That said, I would probably never do that cuz I can't even leave my dentist - let alone my home and friends :-) .. I would rather have my 21 sats confiscated than pack my baggage for good :-)
Ok, what will you do when they push another executive order 6102 saying no citizens can self-custody their Bitcoin: "Please deposit all your Bitcoin at one of our regulated approved custodians and you will be given a Bitcoin IOU." Now what? Your only alternative is to break the law if you don't want to. Now you are in the black market territory. There is already precedent for this with gold.
Ok, what if they just make a law saying you can't leave the country with your Bitcoin? Again, you now must break the law. There is no getting around it. You can ultimately be lawful or permissionless, but not both.
Jurisdictional arbitrage sounds great in theory, but 99% of people cannot just pack up and migrate like that especially nowadays. And they'll just place a burdensome exit tax so no one does. Didn't you see what happened to Roger Ver recently?
"before it is taxed to hell and the regulators become more entrenched"
This is where power of democracy comes into play . For a term , yes it can be heavily taxed - even that will be challenged in court of law . But next term will be tough for such regulations because bitcoin is good for the state , for the economy and for the people . The way I see it, it is as if people are opting against uncontrolled printer . In a way it is a powerful vote for getting back to fiscal discipline.
Sorry, our worldviews are just incompatible. Like I said if democracy overrides Bitcoin, then it can't be permissionless. If it isn't permissionless it is of no use and fails the original value prop. Think adversarially: If you need permission a government can simply make a law saying you can't self-custody your Bitcoin, you must use their Bitcoin IOUs, and they can print as many Bitcoin IOUs as they want for it's citizens. Now we are back to square one.
Consent is everything. I don't think something magically becomes morally good just because a system is a democracy and more people win a vote over a minority (which is not how laws are decided in reality anyway either)
In that case, a gang of rapists could win a "vote" over their victim. A mob could "vote" to take all your stuff. Makes no sense.
You have a very "solarpunk" take on crypto and paternalistic view of government:
While I agree with the moral sentiment it is impossible to have the order you propose by definition...if "Permissionless" is subservient to "Legal" or "Ethical"...then it isn't permissionless
It's just a tool, it is neutral, it can be used for good or bad like anything else in life. That is all on the person using it.
