>> That's a separate problem that allowing overeager regulation of currency utilization enables.
> Now it seems like you are resorting to the libertarian fantasizing that used to be so common on news-for-nerds sites.
As I see no reason it is a fantasy, I'll continue "resorting" to the reality that, frankly, the entity able to put me to death legally probably doesn't need to know my reasons and justifications for every action I take, respectfully. If that makes me a left-libertarian, then so be it. Respectfully, sounds like you might have some hangups with discussing points that have overlap in classical liberal philosophies, throwing out legitimate discussion with the baby and bathwater.
>> Note, I said hush money, not extortion.
> Threatening to go public with a story when the other party might feel compelled to pay hush money, is already viewed as extortion.
Payment for private services, like sexual services, are common in Europe and likely preferred to be kept private. I believe you would view this as legalized extortion.Yet, the desire for discretion exists even when the "threat" of information being public isn't necessarily blackmail.
> The general public who can be sure that taxes are being paid fairly and they are receiving the services they should. Again, not all countries are as culturally forgiving of tax evasion as Americans, let alone those places with even less controls over the flow of cash than the USA.
That's a weird way to spell "banks and financial institutions." There are plenty on controls already on the impoverished and middle class. A blunt hammer like this gums up transaction processing and allows for additional regulatory capture by banks and financial institutions.