Maybe have a limited exception then, like rape shield laws. You don't need to gut the entire framework for this rare situation. (Plus it would be fun to watch corporate lawyers try to exploit this loophole.)

I think its pretty easy to separate investment properties from primary residences when it comes to transparency requirements.

This is pure whataboutism and made in bad faith. I feel for your friend (if they exist beyond you trying to make an argument), but there are various physical and legal ways to protect yourself from this situation in the US. This edge case is not a good enough reason help shield foreign oligarchs and large corps holding real estate in secret. There is probably a compromise somewhere between both extremes.

Property is a physical thing in the real world that has been here long before anyone "owned it", and will be here long after all the "owners" are gone.

The public, i.e. the people on this planet, have a right to know who is claiming to own which part of the grass and soil that we all share.

> Where do you stand on encryption?

This is a really complicated and broad topic that I cant take the time to type out here. I do not stand on the side of "I have nothing to hide." I fully understand the risks of that position. People must keep some secrets to protect themselves from society. Especially as everything devolves into increasingly strict "purity" tests.

With that said, I don't think the right to obfuscate real estate transactions is the same as spicy personal beliefs/private conversations/etc. IMO there is nothing more public than real estate. I do not consider real estate transactions as protected speech nor one that can be legally hidden. We live in this world together.