Urza – Why Should(n’t) Bitcoin Be Regulated?

I don’t want to beg politicians for permission to use my own money. On the BTC Prague stage, I made the case that breaking bad laws is both more efficient and more ethical than trying to change them — and that obedience, not regulation, is the real poison of society.

How I Met Bitcoin

I first heard about Bitcoin more than ten years ago, while working at the editorial office of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. We were publishing an article about it, and from that very first moment, I saw it as a tool for achieving liberty — a competition to government money imposed on us by the state and central banks. I didn’t buy it to get rich. I bought it because I wanted to support something that challenged state control. That view hasn’t changed.

When Politicians Discovered Bitcoin

A lot has changed around Bitcoin, though. Politicians are calling themselves Bitcoiners now — not because they believe in freedom, but because it gets them votes. I see it in Czech Republic with figures like Babiš, I see it globally with Trump. They’ll do anything to stay relevant. I understand why crypto conferences invite them — it brings attention. But I wouldn’t spend my precious time listening to a politician explain Bitcoin when there are far better people talking about it.

And this trend is making some libertarians turn their backs on Bitcoin. They see El Salvador’s government imposing it as legal tender, central banks buying it as reserves, the US government hoarding seized coins — and they conclude that Bitcoin has been corrupted by state power. I understand the frustration. But my answer is simple: I just don’t care. Any tool can be used for offense or defense. I won’t stop using my gun because other people use guns to do terrible things. Bitcoin is the same.

I’d Rather Break Laws Than Help Write Them

Some people tell me: if libertarians disengage from politics, the regulations will only get worse. I’ve watched crypto associations go from “let’s make regulation less terrible” to actively helping police investigate dark markets. That’s where that road leads. My position is different: I would rather put my energy into breaking laws than bend my will to write them.

Think about efficiency alone. Changing a law is slow, uncertain, dirty — and if you want to win at that game, you have to play dirty too. You make compromises, then more compromises, until nothing is left of the original ideal. Breaking a law, on the other hand, is faster, more direct, and scalable. If you find a way to bypass a bad rule, you can teach others. Openly, anonymously, however fits your risk tolerance. I don’t think I need to explain to Bitcoiners how to stay invisible online.

The Ethics of Disobedience

But efficiency isn’t even the most important part. The ethical argument is stronger. When you accept the framework of “I don’t like this law, so I must change it — but until then I must follow it,” you’ve already submitted. You’ve accepted their authority over your life. I didn’t make those laws. They’re not my laws. They have the physical power to put me in jail, yes — but that’s their power, not their right.

Obedience is the real poison. Every genocide, every war, every mass atrocity in human history required millions of ordinary people willing to follow orders. Hitler and Stalin were powerless without them. Disobedience has its risks — yes, you can fall off the cliff. But far more people have died from obeying than from refusing.

I’ve studied liberty and freedom for more than twenty years, and one thing never stops amazing me: in almost every specific case I examine, the free approach turns out to be both more efficient and more ethical. This case is no different.

Live Your Life, Not Theirs

I also hold Monero, alongside Bitcoin — not because it’s the best store of value (Bitcoin is), but because I want to support a project that says what’s in your wallet is nobody else’s business. Financial privacy is as personal as your health