#Bitcoin ‘is pic.twitter.com/hGsYHMBqot
— ⚡₿itcoinTeddy⚡ (@Bitcoin_Teddy) October 7, 2024
We can’t transcend politics ‘because we have bitcoin now, man’. Sometimes I see these types of t-shirts or sentiments being shared online, but it’s just misleading.
To prove I’m not straw manning, here’s another similar example:
My condolences to everyone who pays attention to politicians 😅
Trust math, not politicians.
— FractalEncrypt ∞/21M (@FractalEncrypt) October 16, 2024
If you just mean, “I’m not interested in politics,” or if you don’t like the politics of a particular party, then that’s one thing, but it’s still not enough to secure your own freedom. As the saying goes, you may not be interested in politics, but Politics is interested in you.
Zoom out here
Even if we ignore the upcoming US presidential election, politics in a broader sense is about group decision-making and reflects the balance of power between individuals. We determine who gets control over which scarce and competing resources, ideally in a way that allows people to live together while reducing conflict. In a sense, Bitcoin helps reduce conflicts over money ownership with the help of cryptography.
But remember the reality here
Yes, we can talk on a philosophical level about freedom, anarcho-capitalism and crypto-anarchy. But the state exists today. So given this reality, if you want to secure your own political rights, it is still important to be involved in some way. That could mean campaigning and contributing to bitcoin, economics and freedom-oriented education, it could mean writing a contribution to express your opinion or lobbying for pro-bitcoin policies, it could mean being a part of a particular party, it can even mean contributing to secessionist movements and causes.
But ceding the political terrain completely to your enemies is a bad decision. In some cases, the politicians are actually unaware of Bitcoin, and they ‘follow’ it by seeing the news headlines. In these truly uninformed cases, it will be helpful to have trained Bitcoiners to talk to them and help them not make big mistakes. It can reduce the risk of poor regulation or laws around self-custody, transfer, mining, running nodes etc. This can reduce the risk of bitcoiners being criminalized, reduce regime uncertainty, reduce tax burden or otherwise.
In other cases, there are politicians who are concerned about Bitcoin or Crypto, such as Elizabeth Warren with her ‘Anti Crypto Army’. In these cases, a more combative approach may need to be taken, with the community supporting a pro-Bitcoin candidate rather than the anti-Bitcoin politician.
But what about cypherpunks who write code and live in crypto-anarchy?
The late Hal Finney, Bitcoin legend and cryptography pioneer, was also a libertarian and even he posted the following on a mailing list discussion (shout out to Aaron van Wirdum to bring this up The Book of Genesis):
“I’m not in cyberspace right now; I’m in California. I am subject to the laws of California and the United States even though I communicate with any other person by postal or electronic mail, by telephone, or over a TCP/IP connection. What does it mean to speak of a government in cyberspace? I fear it is the government in the physical space. The officers carry physical weapons that shoot real bullets. Until I can live in my computer and eat electrons, I don’t see the relevance of cyberspace.”
It’s not that he was philosophically opposed to freedom or crypto-anarchy, but that he saw the limitations of the real world for what they were and are.
But wouldn’t it be nice if everyone could get along? Kumbaya?
Yes, there is an idealistic meaning of “Wouldn’t it be nice” or “what if we all just respected each other’s rights and ignored the state” – but the reality is that “not all people will find that fair”. They see a system that allows them to steal from other people or control other people, and they will take advantage of that. This can manifest itself in very simple ways, with politicians promising ‘free stuff’ or protecting you from the boogeyman in exchange for power. Given that many voters in democracies are not net contributors to the system, they will naturally not think about the long term. They won’t think about the risk taken, or the effort to raise capital and build a business. These selfish voters will just take what they can get here and now and not think about the future.
Doesn’t Bitcoin solve this?
However, won’t Bitcoin solve some of these things? Yes, it is true that the state uses cheap fiat credit and control over money to expand itself. Yes, it is true that the state undermines competing forms of private governance, such as the family, the community, even religion and private charity – to install itself as the more powerful government mechanism on which people depend.
As part of this process, more and more issues are becoming politicized, and this has happened in most of our lives. There used to be unwritten rules about not talking about politics on a date or in a polite social setting. That sense of decorum is now gone, and these days we all endure lectures on the latest ‘Current Thing’, even at non-political events.
Even in the hyper-Bitcoinized world, there will still be family politics over issues such as family matters, inheritance battles or divorce battles. Or if we have monarchies and free rule of private cities, there may still be politics involved. The advantage could be that it is easier not to participate, and that ordinary people are not forced to participate. So yes, in the longer term, Bitcoin will reduce politics, but not eliminate it. But don’t confuse this world now with that world later.
If you think so much can be achieved politically, why use Bitcoin or code at all?
There is a division of labor here. Bitcoin and writing code are absolutely essential. But my point is more that the people who are good at partisan politics should focus on that, and the people who are good at writing and reviewing code should focus on that.
Making the political system less hostile allows people to write code, and it helps everyday HODLers who hold their keys and run their node. Improving Bitcoin’s code and the Bitcoin app could make it technically easier for people to use Bitcoin. In a broader political sense, writing code reduces conflict by further reducing the cost of protecting money. It helps more people HODL and use their coins the way they want.
Everything at a glance
Yes, it would be nice if fewer people used the state to steal from each other or control each other, but the road to get there doesn’t mean just kneeling and taking blows from the other side. Yes, it would be nice if we didn’t have to pay attention to that, but that’s wishful thinking. Even if you personally don’t have the proverbial “stomach” to wade into the morass of political activism in favor of Bitcoin, the least you can do is not dismiss the efforts of those who do. Likewise, the people who can engage in partisan politics or political activism should not discount the efforts of those who write and revise code to improve Bitcoin.
In short: don’t confuse the desired society with the way to get there.
This is a guest post by Stephan Livera. The opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.