Apologies for the bluntness, but this is just extremely naive.
The bank, at its discretion or under order by government, can and will prevent the transfer of funds, so it's really just a case of Murphy's law.
I don't know why there has to be appeal to "fetish fantasies". Is it so hard for you to imagine a scenario where you or others might unjustly be the target of nefarious actions by public or private parties who would wield the bureaucracy of banking system against you? This isn't a hypothetical, one of things opposing counsel does in a lawsuit involving money is to attempt to freeze or restrict your accounts.
You may have never been in a situation where a bank prevents you from moving money, but it happens, and the worldview you are espousing doesn't survive first contact with such a situation.
But you don't have to take my word for it. There's a reason the market for gold ingots exists, and it isn't just to guard against inflation.
I love how you describe it a “fetish fantasy”, I’m sure every authoritarian dictatorship or fascist government in history would have been called a fetish fantasy a decade earlier. So naïve.
The car is a variable for anything you can think of, but I will give you a hypothetical example with the car then. Imagine in 20 years where owning a gas car is frowned upon, the government introduces a new law that one can no longer purchase gas cars - used or not, maybe this government was even lobbied by some electric car conglomerate. Am I allowed to worry about that or is that a fetish fantasy too?
