> People deserve a way to send money without middlemen

Why? Please don't just make unfounded assertions.

What's "deserved" is subjective, but I'll bite. People from countries that are fiscally irresponsible and have tight capital controls "deserve" access to an asset that, while volatile, gives them a better hedge than hyperinflation and can't effectively be blocked by their dysfunctional government. See Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and citizens of any country that has a black market exchange rate for dollars/euros(Argentina, Lebanon, Turkey). You could make the case that this is something for international organizations like the UN/IMF to solve, but, they don't on any timescale that's meaningful to the person whose weekly paycheck buys less bread every week. They already have access to the same information and websites we do(with a VPN), accessing a globally distributed and decentralized ledger is as fundamental as their right to access twitter/facebook.

Americans and Europeans have very limited experience with hyperinflation and volatile currencies, plus we have robust banking/fin-tech sectors so of course we're more prone to scoff at the problems cryptos will solve.

Are you sure crypto will solve the problem of volatile currencies? BTC crashes on around a yearly basis [0], it's to find any currency more volatile than that.

[0] https://www.yahoo.com/video/7-biggest-bitcoin-crashes-histor...

Yes, they're called stablecoins. Dai is a decentralized stablecoin that is always pegged to $1 USD. Rai is a stablecoin that is pegged to itself (using a feedback mechanism).

Both are on Ethereum and if you keep wealth in them that wealth cannot be confiscated or censored (except with a physical wrench attack).

The free movement of capital is a long-established right in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market#Capital

If you read what you linked, you'll find that this only applies for Euros within the Eurozone, with exceptions for capital controls in place.

That's the European single market. Single market means freedom of movement of goods and services, capital and labour. In other words, it's not just capital. And it applies to a small set of countries which all agree to having a number of common rules and regulations. And it's not without intermediaries.

because it crosses the line into censorable speech

Payments are not speech. Find a better argument.

except that sometimes they reduce to speech. especially in cases where there are incidental human rights violations suppressing those payments. the examples why this cannot be left up to arbitrary governments are abundant. so there's nothing wrong with my argument. if you disagree then please show proof.

by the way just a heads up I suggest you learn the value of basic human kindness in your manner.

My definition of basic human kindness includes NOT shilling and trying to defend and justify get-rich-quick pyramid schemes and fraudulent scams, under the pretense of not wanting to pay your taxes.

Speech is the use of language to communicate ideas and thoughts. A payment is not speech. Paying involves transmitting of a financial asset. It doesn't involve the use of language to communicate ideas and thoughts. Therefore, it's not speech. You can't arbitrarily decide that something is speech, just because it suits your interests. This is not how things work.

of course it uses language. it's called a protocol for a reason. god this debate is tiresome.

Whatever. Good luck convincing anyone that a financial transaction is speech.

I don't need to, mr. creates-strawmen-to-try-to-avoid-the-real-discussion. Many people already hold the view that certain financial activities reduce to the freedom to speak or pursue happiness. It didn't come from me. Good luck convincing anyone that you've ever experienced real threats to your human rights.

Of course it didn't come from you. It came from the bitcoin ideologues. You simply repeat what they say like a parrot.

You're welcome.

Your logic doesn't make sense.

You are part of a system like a country. You are part of that country and the country acts on your behalf.

IF there is a good reason that the state only allows sending money after certain criteria are met, its for the good of the country (normal countries, not corrupt ones).

Then the country and its laws has the right to reduce that freedom.

You might believe in the republic idea of everyone for him/herself but studies also show that for normal earning people, this is not helping them at all.

Its not a global basic right to 'deserve a way to send money without middleman'. I'm not even allowed to just move to another country. I'm in one way or another imprisoned in my birth country.

I'm not the property of a government. And please show me where rights are granted to governments and by who and for what basic purpose.

And it's not always about govs.

You may be imprisoned. but dont imprison others with your assumptions

You are part of a system not the property of it.

I'm totally lost on what you are trying to imply with "And please show me where rights are granted to governments and by who and for what basic purpose."

You are fully aware that there are countries. You should know how they work, you should know what models of representation exists and which forms of gov you are in.

Give yourself the illusion that you are independent while paying taxes and putting on your seatbelt.

Just answer the question. If you can't then perhaps you should admit you're arguing about your ideas rather than specific facts. Nuances actually matter here. You said a government has a right to reduce my freedom to participate in a certain system. I'm asking you to cite it so we can speak about something real instead of following a path that leads very clearly to imprisonment of those with whom the buck actually stops (the citizens).