It seems it is true - you read what you believe and rest is all lost. So thank you for quoting a misused qualifier from my post for your counter.

I don't expect people who have not lived or experienced what people like me in the developing countries have to go through because of the Swiss privacy bs. Though I do expect them to hem and haw when stuff like Panama papers are revealed.

Additionally, it seems you don't really understand how cryptocurrency work. Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous and hence, it allows stuff like this:

> I see cryptocurrency as a nice opportunity to introduce a much more stringent monetary system where it's trivial to trace back the origin of money and track whether it has been earned in a legitimate way, including the deduction of taxes.

True anonymity which you want from the 4th Amendment, happens in cryptocurrencies like Monero. Those are resistant to blockchain analysis and you can't trace it back to origin.

Is it really fair to blame the Swiss for the behaviour of your politicians? I'm not convinced.

He's blaming the Swiss for their own actions

Presumably they ("the Swiss") enabled, through privacy focused banking, the politicians to safely funnel away (big) money.

You don’t seem to be interpreting what I write favorably. My main point is that there is a balance to strike between privacy and control. One of the main issues in developing nations is that opening a small business legally is overly complicated (in some cases literally years of administrative work for the applicant), so people are forced to keep everything out of the books, which prevents them from ever gaining wealth needed to reinvest. An ideal system IMO would achieve full transparency for the money of larger organisations (including governments) while giving privacy to private people and small businesses. The Swiss system is very good at achieving the latter but rather poor at at former (for which instead direct democratic processes are intended to achieve the necessary checks). I don’t have a perfect solution for this problem, but IMO it’s worth thinking about - and crypto seems to be promising. Maybe a combination of Monero and Ethereum where privacy is optional, with regulations for what kind of transactions transparence is required?

> Privacy (i.e. 4th amendment) is to Swiss what 2nd and 4th amendment is to conservative Americans: Our insurance against government overreach.

Ah, that's utter BS. Not one of the advocates of banking privacy is demanding similar privacy for wage statements. Oh no, if your income comes mainly from wages, you obviously can't be trusted like people whose income comes from investments!

I solely demand similar privacy for wage statements

The IRS and The HMRC do want to know where all your income comes from - J random buzy body or an employer should be told to GTFO

Your only defense against government overreach (ie violent aggression) is self-defense (ie genuine, well-trained militia of free people).

Reference to: The constitution of no authority by Lysander Spooner, and, The law by F.Bastiat

This is a particularly stupid comment to make in the context of Switzerland, where everyone(+) keeps their national service rifle in their house.

(+) well, a lot of people, even if it's no longer every man of relevant age

What is an example of a genuine, well-trained militia, and how does it fare against a government's military?

This question falsely presumes that the government's military is not also fractured by whatever is causing the militia to revolt. The military is made up of citizens.

But then why do you need the militia?

To protect yourself from and fight against weakened fractions of the government.

The military cannot occupy the entire space of the US so maintaining order of a tyrannical government would require a low ratio of military guards to citizens. With even 50% of the citizens potentially armed and willing to fight back, it's an untenable position for the government.

A militia could fight just as effectively as the Taliban against the government and be several orders of magnitude larger. The US military is good at eliminating identified enemies, but it's pretty terrible at nation building and that's even in its strongest state.

Because I want to a reason to own lots of guns.

Afghan militia has fared well both against US/NATO and Soviet militaries in the past 50 years.

If you are referring to the Taliban and their precursors, they have had, and continue to have significant financial and logistical backing from nation states.

Does that make them a bad example of a successful militia?

Perhaps a successful militia requires significant financial and logistical backing from nation states, in addition to being well trained.

In that case they are paramilitaries, not just militias.

In a democracy it is the role of the free press, the courts and elections to defend against government overreach.

Do you really believe that the 20,000 to 60,000 estimated [1] militia members in the US is what is defending you agains government overreach? There are more than 1.2 million people in the US army (with a $600 billion budget) and 120,000 federal police officers [2].

Another point to consider: democracies outside the US, that don't have 'well-trained militia of free people', seem to be doing just fine. In a number of metrics that you can consider as a proxy for government overreach the US is actually doing much worse than average: number of people shot by the police, number of people imprisoned, number of (innocent) people executed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_U... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_...

Does the genuine well trained militia also have genuine well-tested nuclear weapons, predator drones, recon and comm satellites, redundant infrastructure and easily access to manufacturing capabilities?

Every colonised and now forgotten group of people had what they thought was a genuine well trained militia, for all the good it did them.

Americans have fought world's most powerful army and won, this is why they wrote it in their constitution. At the same time they have managed become world's most powerful army and still not managed to win against a ragtag group of militants.

If citizens of any country get to make a claim about the effectiveness of an armed citizenry, then it is the Americans.

> not managed to win against a ragtag group of militants.

Those militants are not ragtag. They all receive state sponsorship in the form of finances, hardware, training and logistics.

Your analysis also ignores the reality of asymmetric warfare, in particular the asymmetry of the value placed on the lives of the combatants on the different sides.

Terrorist organizations are far more willing to sacrifice their combatants than the US is, and they have a pool of people who share this outlook to recruit from, which is why they persist.

In the event of an internal armed conflict within a developed country, all sides are likely to value the lives of their fighters similarly.