I did not mention Monero at all!
I pointed out that “rule of law & democracy” did OK before the recent modern era of massive, preemptive, general-warrant-like financial surveillance. And that level of surveillance may in fact endanger “rule of law & democracy”.
“Why not try passing strong consumer protection laws that ban companies from collecting and selling data on financial transactions as well as tighter restrictions on the access that law enforcement has on this data?”
You are welcome to try that. Why don’t you start in China, Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Nicaragua? Or even Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Brazil, or India? Protecting financial privacy in those places would help show if your “pass a strong consumer protection law” plan might work.
Even in a country where such a law might have a chance, it’s a fragile protection, & ineffective against most abuses by the state itself. Much better is: built-in, inherent, classic privacy.
I get your point here, but once someone has already lost trust in the government, having the government regulate itself isn't really a viable counter to that person's concerns.
Technology such as atomic swaps mean privacy coins will never be killed by legislation. The best we can do is outlaw their use by the honest, relegating them only to the blackmarket (which is precisely the place you didn't want them in the first place).
I do agree that financial surveillance is an issue, but I'm not sure Monero is the best way to curtail it. Why not try passing strong consumer protection laws that ban companies from collecting and selling data on financial transactions as well as tighter restrictions on the access that law enforcement has on this data? If the problem is a government that is abusing its power, it wouldn't be too hard for them to crackdown on any cryptocurrency they consider a threat. Monero feels like a band-aid rather than a long term solution, and one with some pretty significant downsides.