It's a pretend asset. :)

Fixed it for you.

So you're railing against laws and regulations (I'm guessing the $10,000 reporting requirement?) put in place to combat money laundering? Is that your best argument? You really expect sympathy from me because Uncle Sam wants you to account for large amounts of cash, when there's decades worth of history of violent criminal organizations using laundering techniques to hide ill gotten gains?

If you can actually ACCOUNT for where your pile of cash came from you're not going to have any difficulties paying in cash. If you just show up with a pile of money and can't document where it came from, well, that's a different story.

This is a stupid straw man. You know exactly what I meant. United States Dollars are valid for all debts, public and private. Is this your second best argument? That you can't pay your taxes with pennies? If you really insist on this stupid straw man:

Step #1: Travel to your local USPS.
Step #2: Purchase a postal money order using whatever combination of coins you happen to possess.
Step #3: Mail money order to IRS.
Step #4: Pat yourself on the back for sticking it to the man, because, I dunno, a bare chested blue painted Mel Gibson shouting "FREEDOM" at the top of his lungs?

There were plenty of "Good People" (tm) in Nazi Germany. Many of them did a lot more than nothing; resistance ranged from non-violent underground protests (White Rose) to violent attempts at assassination. "Good People" (tm) are no guarantee against tyranny and this entire topic is irrelevant in a discussion about the proper bounds of Government.

Since time immortal Governments have claimed the right to coin and regulate the currency. This is not a new concept that started with the Federal Reserve Act. If you're going to upend a few thousand years of precedent why don't you explain to us why your desired cryptocurrency solution is better than the system you're railing against? Particularly since the Government (or anyone with enough guns really) can still compel you to participate in the system if push comes to shove.

misattributed

These two desires are incompatible with each other. People tend to vote in favor of benefits from the public treasury. There's a few quotes (some real, some attributed) floating around the internet about this. There's also the very real world example of California to point to.

I thought so too, but it turns out they were just gold diggers after the millions of United States Dollars my long lost Uncle smuggled out of Nigeria. :(

I think the people who look at fools are those investing in an "asset" that has less tangible value than just about anything, including the fiat currencies that many of them condemn. Bitcoin will never be a currency as such, because it will never be accepted for "all debts, public and private." It's an asset, with nothing backing it up, and you'd arguably be better off buying something tangible (real estate, firearms, precious metals, works of art, jewels, and so on) if you're unwilling to store wealth in a fiat currency. There are also intangible assets (blue chip stocks) that are arguably a better bet for storing wealth than bitcoin, unless of course your primary motivation is hiding wealth from the authorities, but even in that instance there are things you can do that are a safer bet than bitcoin.

The Western concept of freedom probably started with the Greeks. Of course, they weren't perfect, they owned slaves (as did the young American Republic) but Western civilization has never been and never will be perfect. The Romans added a great deal to the mix, as did the British, and the United States is really just built on all that came before it.

Incidentally, I've never been to Sweden, but I've spent some time in Finland. I'm actually headed back there for a month this summer and have a trip to Stockholm on the agenda. If you've got any suggestions for things to do.... :)

Our country can't even move forward with the military tribunals of unlawful combatant foreign nationals captured aboard, even though such tribunals are explicitly allowed under both domestic and international law. You think we'd be able to do it against an American citizen, for crimes allegedly committed on American soil? Give me a break. This is the type of conspiracy theory nonsense that makes internet discussions a complete waste of time. Study how the real world works, it's a lot more boring and bureaucratic than you think.

You'll forgive me if I decline to discuss my views of the relevant NSA programs, since /. isn't exactly welcoming to opinions more nuanced than "Snowden Good. NSA Bad."

All I'll say on the subject is that there are mechanisms in place for people who feel their Government is doing wrong. He could have gone to the relevant Congressional committees or the Inspector General at NSA. He could have used the whistleblower act. He ignored all of those options and leaped straight to leaking, then further threw the baby out with the bathwater by leaking details of programs that had no bearing whatsoever on domestic civil liberties, like NSA's activities against China. In effect, he substituted his judgment for the judgment of our elected representatives, an act of extraordinary hubris in the words of Robert Gates.

In spite of everything I may have retained some understanding of his choices had he opted to selectively leak the details of NSA's domestic activities. He didn't do that though, he took as much as he possibly could and leaked it all, with no consideration for the damage it would do to American interests and national security. That may not mean anything to you but such actions have far reaching ramifications and I don't recall seeing Mr. Snowden's name on the ballot when I was selecting the people who would wield that power on my behalf.

You might have a different perspective if you're homosexual. Or Muslim. Or generally anything but Slavic Orthodox.

Here's an interesting statistic that speaks volumes about corruption in Russia: The annual global wealth study published by the financial services group Credit Suisse says a mere 110 Russian citizens now control 35 percent of the total household wealth across the vast country.

I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. - MLK Jr, emphasis mine

I can't arose much sympathy for someone who professes to love his country but seeks refuge from a regime that stands opposed to virtually everything his country stands for. There are people who are willing to die for this country, without fame or recognition, but Mr. Snowden both outs himself and refuses to face a jury of his fellow citizens?

It's not Finnish. ;)

If they're "high-prestige" why aren't you willing to move? It's not like you own that apartment you're renting. Move out when your lease comes up and make sure you tell management why you're doing it. Good tenants are hard to find, if you complain infrequently and pay your rent on time (less common than you'd think) they'll be sorry to see you go and will listen to your reasons for doing so.

Doesn't solve your problem in the short term but it's more effective for long term change than griping about the problem on Slashdot.