Developments in Canada have drawn quite the audience as of late. A convoy of truckers that began as a small display of disagreement and resistance has evolved into a global movement of resolve and principle, reaching in influence as far as Israel, whose residents kicked off their own convoy of freedom.

A movement that has been rooted in a peaceful declaration of disagreement with measures taken by their government to restrict the liberty of their citizens, has been met with some outlandishly aggressive pushback from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Of these measures we come to the discussion around the accumulation of capital in order to support such a movement. While GoFundMe has been used by many over the years to seek public assistance during times of need (among other motivations), the organization is proving that such centrally-controlled authorities may not be worthy of trust by the general public for such needs. When it is so easy for one individual, such as a prime minister, to deem voluntary public support as "terrorist activity" with no real defendable justifications for such a label, how can anybody feel confident that any donations of support can be safe from seizure by a central authority?

And, going further, who are these individuals in ivory towers of authority to claim that their own activities are not inflicting damages, if not terror, of their own? We have arrived at a particularly slippery slope when it comes to the discussion around law enforcement and criminal activity prevention; can you effectively prevent crimes from happening before they are committed?

When utilizing financial data, cross-referenced with logistical data, and confirmed with communications - sure that's arguably a good foundation. But when we begin to act based on assumptions around criminal activity and violence, we begin to rapidly deviate from lawful activity and can easily dive headfirst into violations of human rights - particularly around privacy. (For instance, have you ever seen " Minority Report ?" ) When governments across the world turn to aiming to prevent crimes before they are even capable of occurring - that is a very dangerous slope to slide down.

Well, this is effectively what the Canadian government has done with recent actions of seizing the funds that were voluntarily given by peaceful members of society. To really drive the matter home, there was intent to redistribute the seized funds to charities of their own choosing instead! They were actually going to attempt to steal funds that were intended for one purpose from donors instead of refunding them - that alone is a massive red flag.

So the conversation comes down to the marrying of the State and money. Should this marriage still remain today, especially given such transgressions of authority, and abuses of power? I don't dare to tell my cherished readers what to think, and I'm not interested frankly. My only aim is to propose considerations to issues that I see throughout the world. This issue in particular being of massive importance, due to the implications of future abuses afforded if such transgressions go unchecked and unchallenged.

While the matrimony of the State and money serves both of those parties well (quite well indeed) it does not serve the most important party of all; the people. When money creation can be co-opted or manipulated to support powers that be (the State) against the will of the people, the only end result is tyranny. Abuse of powers afforded by their constituents in the aim of servicing the government's own agendas without consideration of what the people want for their country.

This concern (among others) is what motivated a few members of the Bitcoin community to come together and produce a "Declaration of Monetary Independence." The intent is not anarchy, nor is it the destruction of current financial and economic systems. The aim is to simply say "enough." The aim is to separate money from state, government and corporate control.