One of the most common talking points in Bitcoin advocacy is:
“Bitcoin operates beyond any government’s grasp.”
— Bitcoin Magazine
This is often framed as a positive trait — especially when it comes to authoritarian governments. But let’s look deeper.
For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the strongest version of the claim is true: that authoritarian regimes cannot stop Bitcoin. Even if they track users or punish transactions, the protocol itself keeps operating.
Is that really a good thing?
And what happens when no government — not even a democratic one — can intervene?
1. Bad Regimes Can Still Do Good Things
The argument is often: “Authoritarian regimes try to censor Bitcoin, therefore Bitcoin must be good.” But that logic assumes everything these regimes oppose is automatically bad.
That’s not how morality works. Even authoritarian governments sometimes take actions that are widely agreed upon as good — like stopping human trafficking, curbing terror financing, or prosecuting child exploitation.
For example, both China and Russia actively try to reduce fentanyl trafficking and organized crime. Not because they are benevolent, but because these actions harm society. If Bitcoin enables people to bypass those efforts, is that a win for freedom? Or just a blind spot?
2. Bitcoin Ignores Democracy Too
Bitcoin doesn’t only resist authoritarian governments. It resists all governments, including democracies.
If a democratic society passes laws to ban things like illegal weapons sales or dark web marketplaces, Bitcoin continues to operate regardless. Its censorship resistance applies whether the law is unjust or completely legitimate.
This isn’t just a check on tyranny. It’s a challenge to democratic accountability. Bitcoin isn’t “pro-democracy” just because it’s “anti-authoritarian.” It doesn’t recognize any government’s authority — even legitimate ones acting with public support.
3. When Code Is Law, What Happens to Justice?
Supporters often say that in Bitcoin, “code is law.” Transactions are final, automatic, and irreversible. But this creates real moral problems in the real world.
Bitcoin has already been used in:
- Ransomware attacks, like the Colonial Pipeline shutdown in 2021
- Drug trafficking, including fentanyl and other opioids
- Human trafficking and exploitation
- Sanctions evasion, including by North Korean hacking groups
In each case, Bitcoin’s resistance to regulation protected the wrongdoer, not the victim. If we can’t reverse a payment, seize stolen funds, or even identify the sender, how do we ensure any kind of justice?
4. Transferring Value Isn’t a Human Right
Some people argue that governments should not be allowed to interfere in financial transactions. That the freedom to move money should be absolute.
But that’s not how human rights or constitutional law work.
Rights like speech, assembly, and religion are protected. The unrestricted right to anonymously move money across borders is not. In fact, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to regulate commerce and collect taxes.
There is no recognized human right to bypass regulation or avoid accountability in the financial system.
5. Freedom Without Oversight Isn’t Justice
It’s true that criminals will always find ways to exploit systems. That doesn’t mean society should give up trying to prevent harm.
Laws and regulations exist to reduce abuse and help victims seek recourse. Bitcoin, in its current form, offers none of that. It enables freedom — but without responsibility or consequences.
That’s not justice. That’s amoral infrastructure.
⚖️ TL;DR
Bitcoin’s resistance to government control is often portrayed as a moral good, especially in authoritarian countries. But it also undermines democratic laws aimed at preventing real harm. It has enabled fentanyl sales, ransomware attacks, and exploitation.
A system that protects everyone equally, regardless of what they’re doing, isn’t neutral. It’s indifferent — and that has consequences.
Note: I'm not against decentralized technology. But we need to think carefully about systems that can’t be stopped — even when we should want to stop them. "Unstoppable" doesn’t always mean "good."