But you need the person n the other end to be set up with bitcoin. With the current transaction limit, the likelyhood that the other person is set up to accept bitcoin stays low.
As with the 2nd amendment, arguing for the right to bear arms is not in and of itself an argument for their use. In this case, bitcoin represents by which civil disobedience could be practiced. As long as it is maintained as a real alternative (meaning first and foremost it operates outside the constraints of authority) then a reasonable argument can be made that regulators in democracies will compromise in allowing greater user rights in the official alternatives. Napster and bittorrent did change the music industry, in the end.
But even without game theoretic arguments involving civil disobedience, Bitcoin is still interesting. It offers cryptographic protections that have never existed before in real fintech applications (e.g. programmable signatures), and radical transparency and configurable trust that can patch the sort of vulnerabilities that led to the 2007 financial crisis.
Like getting your money out of Venezuela, Argentina, Cypress or Greece before its gone or you can't get to it? Those are all illegal. Legality and morality are not the same thing and not all of world lives in cozy security.
Look up the ideal properties of money and you might understand the big picture better, but it may mean challenging your deeply held beliefs and not everyone is ready for that.
