Note that societies have actually come a long way in the last decade or two, current setbacks notwithstanding. With all the noise the certainly not perfect US political system produces, it's easy to overlook how many things actually work quite well, both in the US and in other democratic countries.
Other crimes that cryptocurrencies may be useful for are obviously tax evasion, and any sort of money landing from all sorts of schemes. I really don't see a reason why we should rethink the basic principle of fair taxation, or, in general, why we should abandon the current system based on law for one where might is right.
In fact, the most impressive advancements have been in protecting people from the "tyranny of the majority". Things like due process even for terrorists, or presidents, or pedophiles would probably not get a majority.
Think about it: the system based on majority-rule happens to be the best if you're generally hated by everyone. If people like you, Russia doesn't actually feel that different :)
This is the best explanation I have seen. Morality is a completely artificial construct. There is no such thing as something being provably evil or good. It's not a math equation, but rather the consensus of your peers.
I love crypocurrency as much as the next guy, but I also enjoy the happiness I get from living in a law abiding community.
Most things aren't math equations. All distinctions in the real world are messy, seemingly arbitrary at some level. Can you define what it means for something to be alive or dead? I seriously doubt it. Yet we do not dispute the existence of such distinctions. The concept of life improves our understanding of the world despite its slipperyness.
IMO, moral truth exists as much as scientific truth we just interact with/discover it differently. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good place to start if the topic interests you:
I agree based on lots of personal experience with and research on people who talked utilitarian but acted different when the law's enforcers were focused on them. I fought with myself over this in many situations balancing the struggle between my own survival/well-being vs supporting principles. Takes discipline and sacrifice to practice utilitarianism. What it took me led me to be suspicious of people who preach it who spontaneously do what benefits them esp at others' expense even in small ways.
Great idea. Why bother ever trying to improve things where you live when you can just move to fantasy-land where the laws are in perfect agreement with your beliefs?
This argument makes even less sense in the US since the government makes you get permission, provide years of tax records, and pay them a huge amount of money (over $2000 plus some large percentage of your holdings) to renounce your citizenship. You can't "just leave".
Those two ideas aren't inherently contradictory. It's pretty easy to ground metaethics by asserting something like "human genetics encodes an instinctual preference function for social mores into human brains." Then, "morality" is an objective fact: an objective fact about what actions are acceptable to (neurotypical) humans.
Special speech for special occasions
You want to define that?
* Toys, playthings
* Death rituals, mourning
* Feasting
* Body adornment
* Hairstyles
* Art
It's a good thing toys and art are culturally universal, but they don't say a thing about morals. It's just that it's hard to think of many things that are actually universally accepted as moral. Even lying is acceptable in various religions in different contexts. We as societies can't even agree on what is and isn't murder or if it's acceptable.
What then?
It's good hygeine to repeal or amend laws that we aren't willing to enforce, but it doesn't always happen. If it does happen, it's almost always after, not before, doing what the law prohibits becomes widespread and socially acceptable.
It might be morally necessary to abstain from behaviors your community finds unacceptable. It might also be morally necessary for the executive branch to enforce the laws exactly as written, no matter how poorly they track moral consensus, until the laws are changed.
It doesn't follow that it's morally obligatory to follow the law just because it's the law.
Make that the consensus of your peers' so called representatives in Congress, because we're not direct democracies like ancient Greece. Politicians took care to subvert the power from the people to line up their pockets.
Your point is not invalid, just more nuanced or complex perhaps that your direct point suggests.