It's not passive giving up - many people, including me, consider the social change you want to drive as harmful in aggregate, and would fight against it; and I'm asserting that at the moment we are in the majority.

I understand the idealistic benefits of freedom of payments, however, the KYC/AML restrictions are there for valid reasons that simply have much more magnitude of importance (for example, the scale of corruption and its social harm is so big that even a slight decrease in that due to KYC/AML enforcement far outweighs all the current social costs of KYC/AML) and removing them would mean that in aggregate the bad guys have won. I'm not saying that you're a bad guy, but you are an "ally of convenience" to them as achieving your position would let the bad guys win and I would consider it immoral to allow that.

We definitely should strive for better, more accurate AML/KYC implementations that have less impact on legitimate trade. But arguing for removing AML/KYC just because of that is effectively throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

The most compelling reason to argue against these kinds of laws is to think of their full consequences if suddenly illegal transactions were virtuous, as they have been in the past when totalitarian regimes have gained power. The present day doesn’t put a high value on freedom to transact in the west, because most illegal transactions in the west are for things many would consider criminal or immoral. But if times change (as they do in history) then not securing the freedom to transact and a vibrant economy rooted in this freedom will be come to seen as a grave error imo.

Fair enough.