I see your point, but I take issue that violations of economic liberty are not egregious. One might argue that if you're unable to make a living without being strangled by red tape, no other issue is more important. Uber is too big to garner sympathy, but the average person who faces losing their livelihood to bureaucracy doesn't look all that different from Rosa Parks. E.g.: http://ij.org/issues/economic-...

I read a comment from political scientist Ray Laraja that I thought was interesting: "It doesn't sound like [the FEC commissioners] are going to do this, but if they allow bitcoins to remain anonymous then politicians actually wouldn't know who's giving to them. And so at least in theory, that could cut off this corrupt exchange." I don't know how feasible that really is, but would it improve things if all political contribution were required to be made anonymously via bitcoin.