Crypto holder here (but not a millionare). Who says government isn't the reason they haven't done something else? If there were no government, you could just "deal" with the problem person that stole your money yourself.
We live in a land of law and order. Without any law or order, or organization, your recourse is to do something similar to what the IRS does when they do not get paid.
This is pretty rich coming from someone who's legitimately suggesting vigilante justice as a policy.
"Law and order for thee, freedom to be judge, jury and executioner for me."
Tell me oh wise one, how do you get your money back if you live in a place with no government or organization and there are no legal means? Do you expect all of society is just going to get it back for you? All you'd have is yourself, and your way to deal with it.
But we don't live in that thought experiment. In our current society, let's say Joe tricked Bob into sending him all of his bitcoin.
Option A: the government recognizes crypto as property, and the government intervenes to get Bob his property back. Of course, this also means that crypto is subject to taxes and regulations.
Option B: the government does not recognize crypto as property, and does nothing because no "crime" has been committed. Bob is out of luck. But, there are no taxes or regulations on crypto, so if you don't get robbed you can get rich and evade taxes.
Option B is the logical outcome of the scenario that many crypto anarchists originally wanted for crypto. No government oversight, which means no taxes or regulations, but also means you're shit outta luck if someone robs you. That's what I was commenting on.
Maybe those crypto anarchists also want a world with no government, so they can take Option C and be their own vigilantes. But it's even more ludicrous to desire that kind of world.
If you think bitcoin holders should be hardcore anarchists you should believe that they should live in a world with those outcomes, whatever you believe they are.
It's pointing out the issue with the "how can you consider yourself a libertarian but support people using a government system, like a judicial system, when they're wronged? isn't that hypocritical?" argument. It leads to the conclusion "if they're really true libertarians, they'd either let themselves be victims or just take justice into their own hands", and neither of those would be desirable outcomes.
The argument would make more sense if, say, the victim had gotten taxpayer-funded federal law enforcement to find and apprehend the perpetrators. But in this case they hired a private investigator, sent a request to the parents of the alleged perpetrators, and filed a lawsuit when the request wasn't responded to.
No, I do not, because that's not how the IRS works. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Perhaps even a single example of "armed agents" showing up to the residence or workplace of someone who has failed to pay those taxes?
your recourse is to do something similar to what the IRS does when they do not get paid.
Except that I don't have the authority to garnish wages or put liens on property. Like the IRS does.
Here ya go: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-...
“Three businessmen told the Senate Finance Committee today of Internal Revenue Service agents who, with guns drawn, broke down doors, terrified workers and forced teen-age girls to change clothes in front of male agents in raids at the men's homes and businesses that they said were unnecessary.
These aggressive paramilitary tactics were denounced as intolerable and ‘’fascist’’ by Democratic and Republican senators as the panel heard testimony for a second day in its second round of hearings on I.R.S. abuses of taxpayers.”
Let's say the government doesn't care at all about their loss (pretty common for fraud crimes in the US, I myself have been a victim of credit card fraud and no one cared even my bank who charged me anyway after I proved it was fraudulent) they actually do manage to get their property back from the person who stole it without government intervention, but they did it through direct rather than governmental action. Who cares, and what are you going to do about it? Sit back in your chair and type about the injustice of a man taking his property back without begging a policeman on his knees to consider giving the slightest care? It's nice that your moral outrage will be present but the pragmatism remains.
Dystopian fiction is not something to strive for.
People can already "do the opposite." Hooded men in the middle of the night could try to take your possessions. The odds the police will show up in time is slim; at least in the US especially in rural areas your only chance is to take retaining your possessions in your own hands. Removing governmental restraint just prevents you from being convicted in court if you act directly instead of using the gun of a policeman. This is why in places like Texas is it legal to shoot someone for trespassing on your land and taking your property; some would argue that should extend to your virtual property such as bitcoin.
[1] See citations regarding primate behavior ("property in primates") in https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/214043811.pdf