“A state is any entity that can pardon a crime retroactively. If you pardon a murder, you get an army. If you pardon an assault, you get a police. If you pardon a theft, you get taxes. This idea exists that the sovereign ability to change the rules “For a limited number of people and giving them licenses to do things that might be criminal, gives you a very clear definition of the state washing your hands when you do something that is inherently wrong.” @leash
The recent imprisonment of Samourai Wallet developers signals a new attack by the US government on privacy and financial freedom, especially the use of cash.
They accuse the Samurai owners of conducting money transfers without a license and not adhering to strict anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing procedures.
First, they are accused of money laundering, a crime that cannot be considered a crime in any liberal legal system. In any system of social organization, whether monarchy, capitalism, libertarian, anarchist, democratic, or any other moderately rational form, For there to be a crime, there must be a victim. This means that a person may not be punished unless he has harmed another person. For there to be a victim, there must be involuntary harm to another person. Only communist or pro-communist regimes can tolerate the rampant fascism of punishing individuals even though they have never harmed anyone.
The crime of money laundering under current law essentially consists of concealing the illicit source of funds obtained through illicit activities seeking to bring those funds (illegally) into the legal financial system to give the appearance that they come from legitimate activities. Any crime without harm. In other words, it is clear that this act should not be punished. Rather, it is work that deserves reward. Doesn't a “criminal” who decides to use his money to obtain goods and services that do not harm others help society as a whole? Does society benefit from preventing criminals from using money? Why would the state encourage the punishment of a completely harmless activity like the use of money when it has already prohibited harmful activities against third parties, which would make someone a criminal? Don't voluntary disclosure programs or amnesty programs promote exactly the same act as the crime of money laundering but except that the conduct in that context is lawful? So, since money laundering laws accept the procedure intermittently, why not always? If an action accepted by money laundering laws (i.e. money laundering in the first place) is harmful to society, why is it allowed? Either money laundering really causes no harm and should not be illegal, or money laundering laws harm society and therefore should be illegal..
On the other hand, the exercise of terrorism can be defined as the exercise of control over another person on the basis of transmitted terrorism. Therefore, terrorist financing is financial assistance to an entity dedicated to controlling others on the basis of transmitted terrorism. In the Samourai Wallet case, the Tornado Cash case, the Silk Road case, and many other similar cases, the state has failed to demonstrate financial assistance to the alleged terrorists it claims to be fighting. If one really wants to combat the financing of terrorism, one must start by combating tax collection and money printing. The main financial instruments that contribute to the only duly proven terrorist economy. There is no doubt that in cases like the three mentioned above, and many others, the state arrests people in order to instill fear in the hearts of developers of similar projects.
Finally, it should be noted that the state does not have the legitimacy to issue and monitor licenses and permits that are inherent in every human being by nature. In any moderately rational system of social organisation, the private actions of men which do not affect third parties cannot be subject to the regulation of the state. If a person owns a lake and allows another to fish in it, the state has nothing to do with it, neither “granting” nor withdrawing rights, in this example “fishing licences.” In the same vein, there is no room for state intervention if someone wants to provide a money transfer service to other people who accept it voluntarily and are not victims since they have not been harmed or made any claims against that person.
Fortunately, Bitcoin fixes all of this by defunding the state and opening up the possibility of decentralized, peer-to-peer value transfer without intermediaries. But the path to hyper-digital currency is not and will not be without obstacles. Striving to maintain the status quo and maximum control over individuals is not something the Juggernaut will lose without a fight. Meanwhile, many innocent people will pay the cost of daring to engage in activities that the world's masters do not explicitly endorse. But I have no doubt that the battle for freedom will ultimately be won by all of humanity. We are better than them in everything, we produce more, we are smarter, more creative and more flexible. Although direct combat between each individual against the state is lost physically by the individual, as in this samurai wallet; Being distributed and being much more than it is, in the long run, the battle will be won with the help of the insurmountable walls that Bitcoin and crypto help us build.
This is a guest post by Camilo JdL. The opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
The post The State Is The Terrorist In The Case Against Samourai Wallet first appeared on Investorempires.com.