My point to here is not to argue a "libertarian" viewpoint (I'm not 
one), but to argue that there or other consideration to mining crypto 
and that it is outside the realm of the free software movement from 
which Guix's package inclusion policy is derived. You or I might not 
like or agree with the over viewpoints but that should be fine with in 
the context of free software and operating systems. This is also 
foundational to liberalism and having a functional government in the 
first place.

> Who is going to pay and provide all of this
I personal think it would be wonderful if governments focused on 
providing those things and mechanism such as the harbinger tax could be 
great and removing control of the monetary supply from the state would 
greatly reduce its ability to fund military expenditures. For reference 
David graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years is an interesting narrative 
of how money's evolution was impart driven by the waging of mass war.

On 2/24/22 10:23, Hartmut Goebel wrote:

> CW: politics below
>
> Am 20.02.22 um 21:39 schrieb Martin Becze:
>> But undermining the governments ability to raise tax and therefor to 
>> wage war or not expending energy to prevent government theft is the 
>> ‘controversial morality’ that I am sure can be agreed to death and 
>> which probably doesn't belong on this list. 
>
> Undermining the governments ability to raise tax also means 
> undermining the ability to build schools, kindergartens, public 
> libraries, public transport, streets, etc. Who is going to pay and 
> provide all of this, If there is no democratically controlled(*) 
> government?
>
> You might argument that this will then be paid be wealthy people - but 
> the country will depend solely on their will and want. And these 
> wealthy people are not controlled at all. And these people might wage 
> war, too. We already had such a system in the medieval time. It:s 
> called feudalism.
>
> So nothing is won by undermining the government.
>
> (*) Democratic control still needs a lot of improvement. Esp. in the 
> USA where „the winner takes it all“ results in a two-party system, 
> which does not represent the people. But this is another issue.
>
>