To be perfectly honest, I wasn't saying exactly that. Yes, you got the point right: if you don't like the services a private company provides - stop paying. It works. With government it has historically been impossible to do, because it controls money supply and extracts taxes with the threat of force (don't want to pay? Go to prison). Bitcoin offers a simple non-violent and effective way out of this, because it would be prohibitively expensive to collect taxes if people used Bitcoin. It would only be possible when they converted it to fiat or physical things big enough to be noticed and tracked (like houses or cars). Thus, my point: use Bitcoin as a unit of exchange and don't pay a cut.
Bitcoin offers very little here. If you are smart about how you interact with it, it might be substantially more anonymous than other digital payment mechanisms. It is not any more anonymous than physical cash, and governments collected taxes just fine when everyone was paying with cash. They do this through audit and threat of force, and that is just as applicable to bitcoin.
Not true.
1) Is gets a lot harder and more expensive to collect taxes when you have to conduct audits
2) It is impossible to collect the inflation tax
3) It's easier to control people when you can close down or freeze their bank accounts for any reason you like.
Bitcoin offers a lot of freedom at a price of learning a little bit about the technology.
1 and 3 are not at all applicable to cash, which was my point - governments have collected taxes in cash since forever, so they can collect taxes in bitcoin.
2 is a point, but I am not convinced it's hugely significant (though will be happy to delve deeper).
By printing more money, he government has more money. By increasing the supply of money, the "price" (which is to say "value" - how much you can trade it for) of money goes down. So value moved from "those who hold dollars" to the government, which can be viewed as a sort of tax. By not using dollars, you reduce demand for dollars (hopefully more than you reduce supply through decreased velocity - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money) meaning the government has to print more to pay for the same things and so you lessen the ability to raise money in this way.
I am skeptical about this being significant, because the amount of money raised by printing money has historically been radically lower than the amount of money raised by levying taxes.
