But their main source of income are taxes. And why would taxes change?
>and if the government comes to your door and says "give me 10 bitcoins [...]", you're going to do your best to vote those people out
Why would that be different with 10 bitcoins than with 10 thousand dollars?
My point about "coming to your door" was not bitcoins vs. dollars, but taxes vs. FOMC. If the government really wants to give away the value equivalent of trillions of dollars, they have to get the money from increasing receipts, rather than just monetizing debt. They can take on debt, but they have to pay for it, rather than use accounting tricks to borrow at zero interest to support zero interest "loans".
That said, you're probably right; no effective political action is going to be taken in opposition to tax levies, especially if they're aimed at the "1%" -- by the time the 1% becomes the 30% (vis a vis AMT) people will have forgotten why they cared.
I don't think the second condition "assuming the US gov ..." is compatible with the first. My objections to fiat and my fondness for cryptocurrencies is much more in line with what the slide's authors seem to be saying -- specifically, I feel that it gains in ethics, rather than effectiveness.
The problem that would be solved is that the US government would no longer be able to continue operations in exactly the same manner. Bailouts for failed companies are no longer a given -- the money has to come from somewhere, and if the government comes to your door and says "give me 10 bitcoins so that I can give them to these idiots who lost billions of bitcoins making bets on the real estate market, but they also get to keep the billions they made while those bets were winning", you're going to do your best to vote those people out on their ear. Similarly when it comes to financing a state of perma-war against the very concept of being afraid.