Although it should - because the fact that there is a service dedicated to laundering ought to indicate that bitcoin itself does not serve that function. But unfortunately, the old media doesn't think too good. Either that or they are really just as corrupt as the government on which they depend.

No, instead you have to have a face-to-face meeting with someone who could easily be a cop or an informant, or receive your product through the government-controlled mail service.

As an illegal good, bitcoin would be MUCH safer on a per-user basis than weed. Especially considering the fact that in order to enforce laws against it, state agencies will have to spread themselves even thinner than they are, and that's so thin that they can't even keep heroin out of their own prisons as it is.

Sort of like how they have made government stop marijuana from having widespread use. Right?

The politicians behind that report are not in a position to benefit from national drug prohibitions. I do not think their opinion will affect nation-state decision making to any great extent, nor do I believe they would still be playing the same tune if they had the opportunity to wage a global war on drugs.

I'd rather they become enthusiastic through the "undorsement" of a Senator, but apathy will do.

Stop capitalizing "enemy". You do them too much honor.  

I believe they have decided to eschew bitcoin, however.

The real early adopters have that luxury. Some of us paid dearly (considering our salaries) to get in later in the game. 

I do not reject the possibility, but as I cannot speculate without veering into conspiracy theory, I will decline to speculate.

I haven't actually read the laws, but from what I am given to understand, literally any financial transaction can technically be considered money laundering.

The war on drugs is already helping to bankrupt the Federal government, and it's about as effective at ending drug use as pissing in a bathtub is effective at lowering the tub's water level. A war on bitcoin would put a few people in jail, certainly. But the added cost to the state would only hasten the state's demise. I do not welcome or call for additional state aggression, but it must be recognized that the state is already overextended, and every new war it starts, whether on foreigners or its own people, makes it less effective at each war it persists in fighting.

And few things would win sympathy to the bitcoin community faster than political aggression against its users.

Politics is a total waste of time and resources. We'll never beat the banksters through lobbying. I'm not telling you what to do, just telling you what will happen.

But even if it were possible I wouldn't want to get my hands dirty with the bribes we'd need to pay.

Nope. What the hell's the point of barter if the state's going to get a piece of it?

Appeals to authority, unfounded assumptions, ad hominems, and non sequiturs abound in the above post. Oh, and name-calling. Considering that plus the amount of vitriol, I suspect trollage. And badly done trollage at that. Go back to YouTube.

Floww, I used your design for the "tip jar" at my website: http://fledgepress.com

I will send 10% or .2 BTC (whichever is more) of my first receipt to you. Or whenever that much accumulates. Thanks!  

My point was that Nozick didn't defend libertarian ideas very well at all in my opinion. I suppose I didn't make that clear.

Unk, you seem to have missed my point: You assumed that we had not read Nozick. At least in my case, you assumed wrongly. That is all. I know that Nozick is thought to be a libertarian, and it's very clear that you aren't. I was under the impression that you were calling Nozick to the stand because he was a "libertarian" who argued for a minimal state, thus making him superior in your mind to anarchist (i.e., consistent) libertarians, or as you put it, he "argued better" than we did. I thought it reasonable to presume that you think he argued better than we because his position is closer to yours than ours, because it frankly makes no sense whatsoever to critique the argumentation style or quality of random people on the internet by referring them to a professional academic which you presume we have not read. Of course we aren't as good at presenting ideas as a professional academic. We're amateurs, at least most of us. It has nothing to do with who we have and haven't read.

In any case, Nozick is a poor choice for that. He was not a libertarian for most of his life. In fact he doesn't seem to have had any particular position on political ethics at all. His writings read more like "what if" maunderings than systematic treatments of any idea, positive or negative. From the time that he published Anarchy, State, and Utopia to the time of his death he had been a neoconservative, a social democrat, and an apathetic nihilist. I don't really care to mine the writings of such a muddle-headed and unprincipled thinker as he was for tips on how to present my ideology.

Me too. The UK usually beats the USA to new forms and extents of nanny statism, but other than that the USA is on the cutting edge of politically acceptable tyranny.

I'm always wryly amused at how statists always think that libertarians couldn't possibly have read the works of people who support their position. "Read Nozick!" Because I couldn't possibly have read Nozick already and found his arguments to be insufficient to overcome objections which were so obvious to me that I came up with them without even having read the thorough (and heretofore unanswered) rebuttals published in response to him. No, I must be completely ignorant.