This is me trying to summarise what you're saying, for my own understanding, please correct me if wrong...

I think you're saying:

When I read this it upsets me. It's a fair point to make and I'm sure its partially true that states will do their best to try, but it makes me wonder does bitcoin, and/or its proponents, still have as a goal 'to separate money and state'. Isn't that what some used to say? Does no one say that anymore? Isn't the point to neuter the power of central banks to print money at will and finance atrocities of war?

Hope is not a good strategy, but I still hope that some bitcoiners hold this ambition. To nurture 'the people's money' that no one entity ultimately controls, 'rules without rulers' as they also used to say. Sure states can and will try to subvert it, and will use it when its beneficial to them, but I think to say it is not a threat to states as they'll subvert it and keep it in check denies its existence as money. Gold and bitcoin, everything else is credit. Therefore, the more people who opt-out, and the more the network grows, that is a real threat to the current system which depends on perpetual credit.

Then it seems like you're saying:

I agree with @Fabs here, miners surely must also take a long term view in to account. They don't want to kill the goose that lays their golden eggs. If that were not the case then the latest mining pool-of-pools issue would not be a problem. People wouldn't have to be doing it so stealthily, it'd just be in the open and people would be cool with it.

Anyway great post to chew on, thank you