Topic: Has Bitcoin changed your political position - page 5. (Read 4748 times)

I've been an anarcho-capitalist before Bitcoin, so my political ideology hasn't changed.

What has changed quite substantially is my belief in the practicality of this ideology and my approach towards its realization.

Anarchism, in its various forms, has existed as an idea for quite a while. Many words have been said about anarchism, and a few great intellectuals have contributed their thoughts.
But throughout history there has been very little meaningful, successful, anarchist politics. The political discourse has been rare, and (I apologize in advance to all the people I'm about to offend now) mostly quite shallow. Much of the intellectual core of political theory has disregarded anarchism (just gloss over the literature and compare how much has been written about anarchism, and particularly anarcho-capitalism, to how much has been written about Marxism, for example). Whenever it is regraded, it is treated as a distant utopian vision with little connection to the real world. Unfortunately, many of us anarchists have regarded it the same way.

Examples of successful anarchist political systems in the real world are practically nonexistent. Some have mentioned small sub-cultures existing on the fringes of society in mainstream nation-states. Some have written interesting analyses of places like Somalia. My own favorite example is the Paris Commune of 1871, which many have regarded as an example of early socialism or proto-Marxism, but to me has always looked more like a botched attempt at anarcho-capitalism. Either way, none of these examples can be regarded as pragmatically successful in the long run.

Furthermore, successful political tools which may enable the decentralization of power have also been lacking. Anarchism will remain an esoteric concept unless real-world mechanisms can be devised to begin the process of deconstruction of the state, or at least demonstrate that such a process is possible in principle.
For millennia we've all been habituated to life under centralized power structures, and most people are incapable of even imagining alternative structures. Most people still view anarchism the same way Hobbes did - as a chaotic dystopia in which people kill each other for scraps of food (we've seen examples on this very thread). In such an environment, introduction of anarchist concepts to the cognitive zeitgeist is possible only through the presentation of a working model, in which a large-scale, well-structured, organised political power system actually works in a completely decentralized fashion.

By robbing governments of their power over the monetary base, and presenting a fully functional (and highly scalable) decentralized mechanism for the management of money in general, Bitcoin will do much more than revolutionize the financial world.  It will finally allow people to imagine a world in which all forms of political power are decentralized, and yet complex political structures do exist, and are in fact more stable than before.

Hence, I view Bitcoin as the first truly successful anarchist venture.
The very fact that Bitcoin works so well is proof that systems like Bitcoin can work, which is a success in its own right.

Bitcoin has transformed me from someone who thinks anarcho-capitalism should happen, to someone who thinks anarcho-capitalism can happen. Now we just have to make it happen 

I never needed coercion.

The technical plausibility of micropayments, coupled with wide usage of smart phones, has undermined the fundamental need for government in various areas.  Might take a while for people to realize that and implement systems, of course.

For me the defining moment was when I believed that security and law were services that could be provided by the free market and should not be monopolized by force.  I realized at that point I had completely fallen over the edge.

I was a supporter of a U.S dominated global political order, because history has invariably shown that the fall of one hegemony inevitably gives rise to a new, often much more dangerous one, especially considering the status quo: despite all that U.S has done, it's still much more benevolent and fair than Russia or China.

However it was entirely out of my expectation that something like Bitcoin can be done, because I am not Satoshi Nakamoto, and I am not the only one who had my "impossible" turned into "possible".

If direct person to person currency destroys the State's ability to require itself to be an intermediary in every transaction (via it's currency) which said currency it then creates as it wishes, the result of direct currency would lessen the power, influence and apparent wealth of the State.  Since it's wealth is only that taken from the people, the effect of bitcoin should be that people get correspondingly richer.

I think bitcoin  if adopted in many nations as a second currency would have very interesting consequences.  For example:  

A decides to go to war against B.  A starts to print money and to ramp up it's military.  People in A move money into bitcoin.  A finds it's ability to go to war against B seriously impacted.

C is in a downward spiral with inflation at 50% per year.    Commerce and business and contracts are severely impacted because nobody knows how the units of currency will perform when the deal made today is executed tomorrow.  Making a contract becomes a form of betting.  As volatile as bitcoin is, it is superior to the currency of country C.  Better money drives out bad money.

I believe these are examples of people achieving a solution through peer to peer networking - with the ecurrency - which previously would have been thought to be solvable only by political changes at the national level.  Hence, bitcoin exposes the weak underside of the political process.  It can't help but destroy one's opinion as to the need for political action or change.

So far it hasn't changed my position too much.  When a government tries to shut down Bitcoin, then it will.

That's right, anarchism and chaos are actually the same word, they're totally interchangeable. That's why so many people use them interchangeably, authority figures especially. Because when you say something out loud, it automatically becomes true.

Anarchism is for children and naive people... I don't believe in anarchism but I believe in communities. I believe in people working together towards a common goal.
The Amish society is a good example.

Nah, it's the other way around: I'm here because of my political position.

If politics were not bonkers, I reckon Bitcoin would be useless. It's only backlash against the insanity that has been compromising banking around the world.

It's not like humanity can't solve the issue of efficiently transmitting money. On the contrary, we need multiple hugely expensive police systems to prevent that. It keeps everyone occupied with anything but the actual criminals, while governments can set up absurd laws that favor their buddies on the markets -- with a glorious enforcement system "against terrorism" already in place.

I'm not under the illusion that Bitcoin is efficient. But what's happening in current banking might be so much less efficient that Bitcoin has a chance.

I think I've become more 'radical' and 'extreme' in my beliefs, I've always been pretty against government but now I know we can defeat the infrastructure entirely I think I've turned almost purely Anarchist. I do still believe though if we must have government it should be small and not overreaching since we've all seen what happens when it gets a lot bigger.

Of course Bitcoins are the way to go for Anarchists. I'm one  and Atheist too.
People who got in it during early days, would not be dependent any more on 9 to 5 jobs.

It's a position which allows you to engage in political debate while having sex.

governments...

how cute

Yes; when you're dealing with a society of barbarians, you can only expect this; anarchism just happens to highlight this best, whereas totalitarianism hides it best; this does not remove the barbarians either way, the barbarians just form the best society for them, which typically involves you beneath their foot, either literally or economically or spiritually et al.  Anarchism can only function with a society of rational thinkers, which I believe is what we should be working towards, not away.  My analysis is that all forms of government are temporary until we achieve secular rationalism, whereupon such an event the state naturally becomes unnecessary, much the same way a person no longer relies on their parents to make decisions for them upon realizing they can make such decisions on their own.

Check out this book for an easy explanation on anarchism; the situation you've described is not the political philosophy of anarchism, just a passing tide until another state can be installed, i.e. Somalia.  The anarchist society does not mean no rules, it simply means no rulers, and it is the only method of governance that you can ever hope the law to be reliably and uniformly upheld.


Knowing Elwar, I don't think he's referring to a larger government, either.

No. It hasn't.

Issues and being newly informed should change your political viewpoint. Not attempts to address issues.

some people here seem to welcome anarchist ideals.. but i can't go with that. in an anarchy, it's a fight for survival because there will be people are hungry to climb the ladder from the power vaccum. there would either be war or slavery everywhere. and yes, i know that we are under economic slavery right now, but that's not what i mean. in my mind, it would lead to lots of death and war. at the same time, i know capitalism is fucked up.. so i don't even pretend to know the answer.

Bitcoin did not change my political position.



what is a political position?

If they can get get you asking the wrong question they don't care about the answer.

Wrong question.
Who is better, Democrats or Republicans, Obama or Romney?  (Change for whichever country you are in).

Right question.
Why do we need government?

Socialist now eh? You'll soon come running back once they've got you doing brain surgery on minimum wage. With a quality assurance inspector inspecting your work. And a quality assurance inspector inspecting the quality assurance inspection.