I donโt think youโre referring to money laundering. Without that misplaced term, youโve done well pointing out some of the evils that are a stateโs bread and butter.
Taxation is theft and all theft is a crime with a victim.
Murder is a crime with a victim.
Selling something Big Brother doesnโt want you to sell is not a crime with a victim.
Bitcoin mixing is not a crime with a victim.
Correct. We shouldn't call things money laundering that are not money laundering. Mixing is not money laundering.
Bitcoin mixing does fit the stateโs definition of money laundering.
The point is that money laundering itself does not have a victim.
The state can make anything a crime. But some things are immoral and others aren't. If they aren't then they aren't wrong, no matter what the state says. It's just a question of whether we can do anything about it.
The term "money laundering" is itself a relatively recent term (e.g. no money laundering mentioned in 18th century literature). Like "obstruction of justice," money laundering victimizes the state law enforcement apparatus. It's an invention of a self-preserving bureaucracy.
That the state can be "victim" of a crime is itself an absurdity. The mark of an overgrown institution more so than a true matter of morality.
