One thing I think Patrick should say at the hearing, as brazenly as he can muster, is this:
Thank you for giving The Bitcoin Foundation some influence over the government coercion that could profit us all handsomely.
Then, if he or the Foundation or both can find the wisdom in it, explain that such a plan is immoral and the Foundation has no interest in following it, and then leave. A review of
Voluntaryism might help.
The Economic Policy Journal mentioned this hearing, and I added a comment to the discussion there:
"Notice the hearing title: "Beyond Silk Road"---a very direct linkage between Bitcoin and illegal activities. Not good."
Let's challenge that directly. What DPR was doing is *foolishly* viewed by many as immoral, and it is NOT immoral. He was providing people with a way to break laws that are destructive, harmful, and horrible. DPR was doing things (for the most part) that were healing our world, not harming it. The real criminals are those who appropriate money from citizens (taxes) and pay thugs (called "police") with it to violate the rights of people who are ignoring stupid rules that were invented by elected officials to protect corporations.
The fact that most people don't see government as the largest institution of organized crime makes the author's statement true on one level - if we're just going to sit back and lament about it. But if we're going to talk to people about these issues, it provides a great opportunity to help rid our species of the parasite people call "government."
I read through this entire thread hoping to see some folks touch on this, and I think a few did, a little bit - waxwing and marcus_of_augustus - maybe a few others. Well done, sirs.
On another issue, I think G Edward Griffin is onto something when he suggests that the most important thing for people to consider is whether the collective or the individual is more important. For some people, because they are weak, stupid, evil, psychotic, or some combination of these things, the collective is more important. As individuals, they would be quickly ostracized and abandoned by everyone else. However, if they're smart enough, they will kick ass for good people until they get themselves into positions of "authority," at which point they will subtly, secretly, twist things around so that instead of helping others, they are cannibalizing them. That's what government is. Google "Stefan Molyneux" for more info on that.
The "foundation" is a step both toward cooperation which is excellent, and toward collectivism, which is horrible. Some have "accused" the foundation of working for the interests of its members rather than the whole community, and this accusation embodies the evil of collectivism. If they worked for the community rather than themselves, they would eventually lose interest and resent the community. Bitcoin is great because it allows individuals to flourish on their own individual level or within whatever group they want to join. Cooperation is nice, but when people start expecting a cooperative group to sacrifice, they are promoting evil.
So... is the senate paying the Bitcoin Foundation for the education, or have they (once again) bamboozled otherwise bright people into providing services for free based on the illusion that they provide some kind of value to society?
Has anyone heard of "The Bitcoin Council"? How about "The Bitcoin Collective" or "The Bitcoin Society"? I think we need to found those as well as several other groups.
Maybe I should suggest that during Tuesday's Banking meting.