> This is basically it. I don't know how bitcoin advocates expect property rights (in fact, any right) to be upheld in the absence of a coercive state. They have become so removed from reality that they don't see the most obvious things.

Errr something something blockchain?

Solves what physical property ? Requires trusting a third party. Worse.

The same way that their super-secret-extra-long password protects them from someone with a wrench. It doesn't.

However, it does make money laundering, speculative kiting, and paying for illegal services easier. Those are arguably the opposite or orthogonal to property rights, but they are useful to the those with money and power.

I'm expecting that someday, my defense budget will be part of my Amazon Prime fees.

Do you think that it is only through a coercive State that I can have the right to food or housing? Put another way, do you believe the only way to ensure others have things is by coercion?

I totally admit that a State is needed to ensure safety. There’s always a boogie man. Not sure if that’s true for all rights though. What do you think?

Fear of retaliation probably yes.