We can't transcend the politics 'because now we have bitcoin, bro.' Sometimes I see this type of t-shirt or sentiment shared online, but it's just wrong.
Just to prove that I'm not joking, here's another similar example:
If you simply want to say “I'm not interested in politics” or you don't like the politics of a particular party, that's one thing, but it's still not enough to ensure your own freedom. As the saying goes, you may not be interested in politics, but Politics is interested in you..
Zooming out a little here
Even if we abstract from the upcoming US presidential election, politics more broadly is about making decisions in groups and is a reflection of power relations between individuals. We are determining who controls what scarce and rival resources, ideally in a way that allows people to live together while reducing conflict. In a sense, bitcoin helps reduce conflict over ownership of money through the use of cryptography.
But remember the reality here.
Now we can talk about freedom, anarcho-capitalism and crypto-anarchy on a philosophical level. But the State exists today. So, given this reality, if one wants to secure one's own political rights, it is still important to compromise in some way. That could mean campaigning and contributing to bitcoin, the economy, and freedom-focused education, it could mean writing a presentation to express your opinion or lobbying for pro-bitcoin policy, it could mean being part of a particular party, it could even mean contributing to secessionist movements and causes.
But completely ceding political territory to your enemies is a bad decision. In some cases, it's that politicians are really uninformed about bitcoin and “follow” it by watching the news headlines. In these genuinely uninformed cases, it will be helpful to have educated Bitcoiners talking to them and help them avoid making major mistakes. It can reduce the risk of bad regulations or laws regarding self-custody, transfer, mining, node execution, etc. of bitcoins. This may reduce the risk of bitcoiners being criminalized, reduce regime uncertainty, reduce tax burdens or otherwise.
In other cases, there are politicians interested in bitcoin or crypto, like Elizabeth Warren with her “Anti crypto Army.” In these cases, a more combative approach may need to be taken where the community supports a pro-bitcoin candidate rather than the anti-bitcoin politician.
But what about cypherpunks who write code and exist in cryptoanarchy?
The late Hal Finney, bitcoin legend and cryptography pioneer, was also a libertarian and even posted the following in a mailing list discussion (shout to x.com/AaronvanW”>Aaron van Wirdum for bringing this to light The book of Genesis):
“Now I'm not in cyberspace; I'm in California. I am governed by the laws of California and the United States even if I am communicating with another person, whether by mail or email, by telephone or TCP/IP connection. What does it mean to talk about a government in cyberspace? What I fear is government in physical space. Their agents carry physical weapons that fire real bullets. Until I can live on my computer and eat electrons, I don't see the relevance of cyberspace.”
It's not that he was philosophically opposed to freedom or cryptoanarchy, it's that he saw the limitations of the real world for what they were and are.
But wouldn't it be nice if everyone got along? Kumbaya?
Yes, there is the idealistic sense of “Wouldn't that be nice?” or “What would happen if we all respected the rights of others and ignored the State?”, but the reality is that “not all people would just do it.” They see a system that allows them to steal from or control other people and they will take advantage of it. This can manifest itself in very simple ways when politicians promise “free stuff” or protect you from the boogeyman in exchange for power. Since many voters in democracies are not net contributors to the system, they will of course not think long term. They will not think about the risk assumed or the effort to accumulate capital and build a business. These selfish voters will simply take whatever they can get here and now, and will not think about the future.
Doesn't bitcoin solve this?
Won't bitcoin fix some of these things? Yes, it is true that the State uses cheap fiduciary credit and control over money to expand. Yes, it is true that the State undermines competing forms of private government, such as the family, the community, even religion and private charity, to establish itself as the most powerful government mechanism on which people depend.
As part of this process, more things become politicized, and this has happened in most of our lives. There used to be unwritten rules about not talking politics during a date or in a polite social setting. That sense of decorum no longer exists, and nowadays we all endure lectures on the latest news, even at non-political events.
Even in the hyperbitcoinized world, there will still be family politics about things like family businesses, or inheritance battles or divorces. Or if we have monarchies and free, private urban governments, there could still be politics involved. The benefit could simply be that it is easier to opt out and ordinary people are not required to participate. So yes, in the long run, bitcoin will reduce, but not eliminate, politics. But don't confuse this world now with that world later.
If you think so much can be achieved politically, why have bitcoin or code?
There is a division of labor here. bitcoin and writing code is absolutely essential. But my point is more that those people good at partisan politics should focus on that, and those people good at writing and reviewing code should focus on that.
Making the political system less hostile helps the people who write code and helps the everyday HODLers who have their keys and run their node. After all, if bitcoin and the bitcoin application code are improved, that 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. Help more people HODL and use their coins however they want.
Summing it all up
Yes, it would be nice if fewer people used the state to steal from each other or control each other, but the path to get there doesn't mean that one should just kneel down and take hits from the other side. Yes, it would be nice if we didn't have to pay attention to these things, but that is an illusion. Even if you personally don't have the proverbial “stomach” to wade into the quagmire of pro-bitcoin political activism, the least you can do is not disparage the efforts of those who do have the stomach for it. Likewise, people who may engage in partisan politics or political activism should not disparage the efforts of those who write and review code to improve bitcoin.
Simply put, don't confuse the partnership you want with the method of getting 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.
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js” charset=”utf-8″>
