Bitcoin is anti government..
Bitcoin is dog eat dog, wild west, may the best man win, if you get scammed haha your an idiot maybe you'll learn from it..
Pro any sort of government/authority and pro Bitcoin is an oxymoron..
The "right" is almost just as bas as the "left" anymore.. Neither are palatable..
These countries adopting Bitcoin are simply giving up on trying to control money.. Hope the USA doesn't bomb them back to the central banking scheme..
Topic: Socialists in Bitcoin(talk). - page 2. (Read 426 times)
I am surprised at the number of leftists I see on the forum. I mean people who in general believe that the state is the best guarantor of the progress of society, rather than being the particular decisions of individuals, which would be a more capitalist conception.
Maybe get a bit out of your Tone Vays / Saifedean Ammous bubble. 
According to them everyone is a "leftist" who doesn't share their point of view.
Bitcoin is for everyone, not just right wing, self-proclaimed heros.
Precisely Bitcoin is something completely opposite to a left-wing conception of monetary policy. It does not depend on a state, but on how a multitude of individuals act in a decentralized manner.
The problem is if you say left wing = USSR, it might be true but unfortunately for you, most center / liberal / progressive concepts have very little in common with a communist dictatorship as long as it's a democratic party. In Germany for example, the liberal party has many pro Bitcoin politicians.
Bitcoin is clearly pro democracy and that's why Bitcoin is definitely much more rejected by authoritarian politicians like Trump or Bolsonaro. Bitcoin is reducing the power of dictators and reducing their power is exactly what dictators don't want. Cracking down on free press, judges, curbing democracy or banning censorship resistant currencies is what a dictator needs to secure his power.
But hey, that's what Tone Vays and his braindead friends don't tell.
Today the only unfair advantage is that you have a more prepared candidate, with more merits to get a job and the job is given to a less prepared candidate because she is a woman or an ethnic minority. That is the only unfair thing today.
And how often does this happen? All the time? Or hardly ever, and isolated instances are widely publicised by racists? You can't imply it's a general principle unless you can back this up.We live in the most egalitarian societies in the history of mankind.
Agreed. But this shouldn't be seen as a reason to stop improving, or to deny that problems exist which need to be addressed.I am against modern man-hating feminism, which once it has achieved equal rights, what it wants is revenge.
There's no point in responding to this with anything other than an emoji. Not a word from BLM about structural racism in Cuba.
I got double-charged for an item in the supermarket the other day. No word from BLM on that. So they're in favour of shops double-charging people, right? what you do is to put pressure on social services, push wages down and give less social benefits to the natives, so you can not be surprised that the native worker stops voting for you because that is what you have sought. It is not about any kind of alienation by which he wants to be part of an elite.
The pompous fools who vote right-wing because they think (or want people to think) they've "made it" and are now part of the elite are only a subset of right-wing voters. There are of course other reasons people vote for right-wing parties. Some are racist, yes, and get scared and enraged when the billionaires who run tabloid newspapers blame immigrants for all their woes.I see a leftist tendency also that if you do not support massive immigration (only the controlled one) you are racist, that although you do not say so it seems that is what you imply, and nothing further from reality.
No-one is perfect. I give some of my money to charities. Could I give more, without significantly impacting my way of life? Certainly, yes. Perhaps this makes me a hypocrite... but there are degrees of hypocrisy.I am talking about Muslims. [...] For saying that I risk my life in France.
I would argue that you're talking about a small subset of a very large group. If someone in a red t-shirt attacks me, should I hate everyone in red t-shirts?Great strawman arg. I am claiming that this is true to a significant percentage.
Well, then show some numbers.Of course I have read 1984, but what you are doing in the paragraph is assuming as a premise the conclusion you want to reach.
Another point on which we will never agree, I think. For me the evidence is crystal clear, and is demonstrated every day.The left-wing politician who has put more obstacles, more regulations and more taxes on the labor market, in addition to filling the country with immigrants at too high a rate, which put downward pressure on wages.
Here in the UK we've not had a left-wing leader since the 1970s, probably since 1976. And yet, nearly 50 years later, it's still the immigrants who seem to be to blame for everything. Isn't that strange? 
The comment about white heterosexual males is quite telling. This is precisely what I mean when I say that right-wing voters are in favour of entrenched privilege, so long as they are in the privileged group. They don't want others to share the advantages that they have benefitted from, because if everyone has an equal opportunity, they lose their unfair advantage. I am a white, heterosexual male, and I am wholly supportive of feminism and movements such as BLM. I don't think it's fair that some people are subject to mistreatment or don't get a chance, just because of their race or gender or sexual orientation. Everyone should get a fair chance in life, and I will always vote to reduce or remove my advantage in this regard.
Today the only unfair advantage is that you have a more prepared candidate, with more merits to get a job and the job is given to a less prepared candidate because she is a woman or an ethnic minority. That is the only unfair thing today. We live in the most egalitarian societies in the history of mankind.
I defend the classic feminism, the one that fought for women and men to have equal rights, for women to be able to vote, etc. I am against modern man-hating feminism, which once it has achieved equal rights, what it wants is revenge.
And of course I am not defending the movement Black Lives Only Matter depending on who is the killer. It is a movement that complains about the alleged structural racism in the USA, but not only does it not say a single word about structural racism in Cuba, it defends the dictatorial Cuban regime:
I know about the structural racism in Cuba because some time ago I met people who lived there, but googling:
"Manuel Cuesta, 57, an Afro-Cuban government opponent, says "there are the vestiges and remnants of symbolically cordial racism, structurally hidden, installed in the economic, institutional and political dynamics" of the country."
Source: Racism in Cuba: banned by law, alive on the streets.
Not a word from BLM about structural racism in Cuba.
The left wing parties defend mass immigration, when they govern they let in many more immigrants who...
... who are usually of working age, and perform crucial jobs to support the economy, often jobs that are unpalatable to the privileged natives. A few years back in the UK we had the Brexit xenophobia referendum. The racists won, and guess what? We now have staffing crises in crucial industries, because there are no immigrant workers willing to slave away for a pittance.
The immigration issue is a question of the speed with which you let immigrants in. For me the brexit in the UK was a mistake. But that's not what I was talking about.
I was talking about the left wing navel gazing discourse not wanting to understand why the indigenous working class vote has swung to the right. And the summary of it all is that left wing politicians have abandoned them.
Among the people who immigrate, the poor people, most of them are honest and very valid, but if you let in many very quickly what you do is to put pressure on social services, push wages down and give less social benefits to the natives, so you can not be surprised that the native worker stops voting for you because that is what you have sought. It is not about any kind of alienation by which he wants to be part of an elite.
if they come from a completely different culture, they hate the western culture and they don't integrate
Ouch. This is really your belief? If you were an immigrant entering a country where people thought as you did, then would you feel welcome? You are extremely prejudiced.No, no prejudice, see the previous comment. I see a leftist tendency also that if you do not support massive immigration (only the controlled one) you are racist, that although you do not say so it seems that is what you imply, and nothing further from reality.
I am talking about Muslims. Tell me how integrated second and third generation Muslims are in France. On this forum I can say that God (whether Muslim or Christian) is an invention, a pre-scientific human creation, which makes no sense in a modern world and that believing in God is like believing in ghosts.
For saying that I risk my life in France.
like in France you have a lot of third generation Muslims that don't feel French and they don't integrate.
When you say "a lot", what does this mean? "Some" out of millions? Are you claiming that this is true of the majority? The logic is BADeckeresque. "Some" people who had the Covid vaccine scalded themselves whilst cooking... therefore nothing.Great strawman arg. I am claiming that this is true to a significant percentage.
That is why the French working class neighborhoods have ended up voting for LePen. [...] Have they gone mad? Haven't they gone from being cool progressive socialists to fascists?
Here in the UK, and no doubt also in the USA ("build the wall!"), right-wing politicians have exploited normal people for a very long time. And normal people used to vote left-wing, but now, many of them don't. Have you read 1984? The carefully crafted narrative from those in power is that the inequalities are never their fault, it's never bankers and corrupt business leaders taking your money and starving you of opportunity, no, it's always some voiceless minority who can't fight back. Who's making you poor? Why, it's the Mexicans of course! Or the gypsies! The Romanians, Polish, etc. It's not the white guy in the private jet who just gave you a pay cut, no, it's not his fault! Farcical of course, but it works. Of course I have read 1984, but what you are doing in the paragraph is assuming as a premise the conclusion you want to reach.
and he is also discriminated against with what they call "positive discrimination", which is discrimination after all.
It's not, no. It's an attempt — clumsy at times, yes — to right historical and endemic wrongs.We are not going to reach an agreement on this.
taxes go up and they give more money to people in "aid" for doing nothing.
I find this sort of viewpoint to be both fairly common and morally abhorrent. Not to mention without any factual basis.
Well, here I have to agree with you because it seems to me that in the UK the subsidies are much lower than in other European countries. But in general, this type of aid is a redistribution from those who work to those who do not work, not only for the poor who have nothing and are starving.
If he is not self-employed but is a salaried worker, he will see how there is less employment, and more taxes if he thinks of saving and investing.
See above. If someone is taking away your opportunities, then who is most likely to be doing it? The person in power or the person who has no power? Think about it.The left-wing politician who has put more obstacles, more regulations and more taxes on the labor market, in addition to filling the country with immigrants at too high a rate, which put downward pressure on wages.
Everybody wants to live better, why is that so hard to understand?
A Socialists Bitcoiner is a Oxymoron
The Socialists are the shitcoiners on the forum
The Socialists are the shitcoiners on the forum
I am a white, heterosexual male, and I am wholly supportive of feminism and movements such as BLM.
I'm surprised you are the first part in this sentence a heterosexual white male. I would have thought you were binary or whatever bullshit they call it LGBTQPTXYZ+ person. Feminism and BLM are about dehumanizing other people while being the corporate talking piece of divsion so that we are at each others throats. Right or Left. Gay or Straight. Race. Religion. Age. Whatever the corporate media mouthpieces go on about you seem to pick up. Your just conformists plan and simple. I bet yall got in at about 2017 because it was all the media rage then (you still might have made out handsomely if you did). Anyway back to BLM, you realize it is funded by all the big corporation and George Soros? I think even China funds it so what does that say to you? Its controlled-opposition is what it is. Do you think BLM cares about all the gun violence and crime in their communities? Fuck no its a dinner-bell for whenever a white cop or even a cop period kills a black person to just riot and loot.
Politics differs from economics, so while the economics of Bitcoin is hard-coded, Bitcoin as a tool can be used by both political ends. It's just a money after all and both "the left" and "the right" like gold AFAIK. When SOEs use Bitcoin, they ain't "convert" to private enterprises. The government can control everything outside the Bitcoin system. They just can't control ~21 million supply, can't block transactions, etc.
Exactly! The government really want to own and control Bitcoin,they've been effective in other sectors of human endeavour,but taking over Bitcoin should be a No No.Bitcoin is worldwide,way far bigger than what the government can control as for now.The moment the government is given that leg-room to have control over Bitcoin,then certain values will begin to drop.
I wonder why they won't just forget about Bitcoin and focus on other areas to control, and own,and life Bitcoin.
~
In some discussions we reach some common ground, but in this one we are very far apart.As an interesting — to me, at least — aside, my perception of people who vote for right-wing parties (like the Conservative party in the UK) is that they do so specifically because they "have the pathetic notion that they are in this group, or at least favored by them".
No, it is that you (in plural) are making mental jokes. The working class worker has little reason to vote for leftist parties today, it is not like 80 years ago and even less so if he is a white heterosexual male.I don't know what it will be like specifically in the UK but I tell you what happens in general because you left wing people seem to have a blind spot there.
Okay. The left wing parties defend mass immigration, when they govern they let in many more immigrants who...
... who are usually of working age, and perform crucial jobs to support the economy, often jobs that are unpalatable to the privileged natives. A few years back in the UK we had the Brexit xenophobia referendum. The racists won, and guess what? We now have staffing crises in crucial industries, because there are no immigrant workers willing to slave away for a pittance.if they come from a completely different culture, they hate the western culture and they don't integrate
Ouch. This is really your belief? If you were an immigrant entering a country where people thought as you did, then would you feel welcome? You are extremely prejudiced.like in France you have a lot of third generation Muslims that don't feel French and they don't integrate.
When you say "a lot", what does this mean? "Some" out of millions? Are you claiming that this is true of the majority? The logic is BADeckeresque. "Some" people who had the Covid vaccine scalded themselves whilst cooking... therefore nothing.That is why the French working class neighborhoods have ended up voting for LePen. [...] Have they gone mad? Haven't they gone from being cool progressive socialists to fascists?
Here in the UK, and no doubt also in the USA ("build the wall!"), right-wing politicians have exploited normal people for a very long time. And normal people used to vote left-wing, but now, many of them don't. Have you read 1984? The carefully crafted narrative from those in power is that the inequalities are never their fault, it's never bankers and corrupt business leaders taking your money and starving you of opportunity, no, it's always some voiceless minority who can't fight back. Who's making you poor? Why, it's the Mexicans of course! Or the gypsies! The Romanians, Polish, etc. It's not the white guy in the private jet who just gave you a pay cut, no, it's not his fault! Farcical of course, but it works. If the person who lives in that neighborhood is also a white heterosexual man, he has to hear that he is to blame for the evils of the world
I don't hear that. But then I don't consider myself primarily as part of a white heterosexual male group, exclusive to everything else. I'm not part of any group, other than being human.and he is also discriminated against with what they call "positive discrimination", which is discrimination after all.
It's not, no. It's an attempt — clumsy at times, yes — to right historical and endemic wrongs.taxes go up and they give more money to people in "aid" for doing nothing.
I find this sort of viewpoint to be both fairly common and morally abhorrent. Not to mention without any factual basis.If he is not self-employed but is a salaried worker, he will see how there is less employment, and more taxes if he thinks of saving and investing.
See above. If someone is taking away your opportunities, then who is most likely to be doing it? The person in power or the person who has no power? Think about it.As an interesting — to me, at least — aside, my perception of people who vote for right-wing parties (like the Conservative party in the UK) is that they do so specifically because they "have the pathetic notion that they are in this group, or at least favored by them".
No, it is that you (in plural) are making mental jokes. The working class worker has little reason to vote for leftist parties today, it is not like 80 years ago and even less so if he is a white heterosexual male.
I don't know what it will be like specifically in the UK but I tell you what happens in general because you left wing people seem to have a blind spot there.
The left wing parties defend mass immigration, when they govern they let in many more immigrants who end up living in working class neighborhoods while the (usually millionaire) left wing politicians brag about fixing the world while they don't suffer the problems of that mass immigration because they live in upper class neighborhoods where there is hardly any immigration and when there is it is usually from engineers, high level sportsmen, university professors and the like.
In the slum you have unskilled people competing with those workers for jobs and welfare benefits. Not to mention if they come from a completely different culture, they hate the western culture and they don't integrate, like in France you have a lot of third generation Muslims that don't feel French and they don't integrate.
That is why the French working class neighborhoods have ended up voting for LePen. France has always been a progressive, pro-immigration country, they accepted a lot of Africans from their ex-colonies with little hindrance and those same working class, progressive, pro-immigration neighborhoods that voted left 30 years ago have radically changed their vote.
Have they gone mad? Haven't they gone from being cool progressive socialists to fascists? Neither have they.
If the person who lives in that neighborhood is also a white heterosexual man, he has to hear that he is to blame for the evils of the world, and he is also discriminated against with what they call "positive discrimination", which is discrimination after all.
When the leftists come to power, they put more regulations and more taxes, so that if the person who lives in that neighborhood is self-employed, they see how taxes go up and they give more money to people in "aid" for doing nothing. If he is not self-employed but is a salaried worker, he will see how there is less employment, and more taxes if he thinks of saving and investing.
To think that if workers have gone from voting left to voting right is because they are stupid or because they are alienated and think they are going to be part of an elite is not wanting to see the problem and navel gazing.
No, it is not the voters who are to blame for the turnaround in the vote, it is the left-wing politicians who have caused it.
Politics differs from economics, so while the economics of Bitcoin is hard-coded, Bitcoin as a tool can be used by both political ends. It's just a money after all and both "the left" and "the right" like gold AFAIK. When SOEs use Bitcoin, they ain't "convert" to private enterprises. The government can control everything outside the Bitcoin system. They just can't control ~21 million supply, can't block transactions, etc.
Most people who feel animosity to anything which threatens the elite have the pathetic notion that they are in this group, or at least favored by them.
As an interesting — to me, at least — aside, my perception of people who vote for right-wing parties (like the Conservative party in the UK) is that they do so specifically because they "have the pathetic notion that they are in this group, or at least favored by them".
I know quite a few people who had a poor upbringing in traditional working-class families and backgrounds, but now vote right-wing. Invariably* this is because they have an inbuilt feeling of inferiority instilled in them from an early age. As an exit plan, they have then each set some arbitrary barometer of success, whether owning a house, or getting an office job rather than manual job, etc... and then once they've reached this point, they feel a desperate need to let everyone know that they've "made it" and are now a success. One way they demonstrate their "wealth" and "achievements" is to vote for parties that favour the elite... because these fools have deluded themselves into believing that pulling themselves up from say the bottom 20% into the bottom 50%, they are suddenly part of, and favoured by, the elitist club of the ultra-rich. And so they continually vote against both their own personal best interests, and the best interests of the majority of society. Another easy way to spot these people is to try to engage them in any sort of political discussion... they will just regurgitate the latest tabloid headlines at you, often word for word.
*invariably amongst the specific people I know and am talking about here.
---
Lol, Cnut237, I haven't used your trigger word but you seem triggered.
Yeah. And I've not even been drinking. 
Most people who feel animosity to anything which threatens the elite have the pathetic notion that they are in this group, or at least favored by them. I'll bet that the elite's disdain for such dick-eaters is exceeds whatever they might feel toward the populists class of useless eaters by a mile. I'm not surprised in the least to see your attitude about that here.
As opposed to what, believing that a dictator will care about anyone's interests beyond their own?
I'll take voting for someone/something and ending up with it not being 100% aligned with my interests, over anointing someone to rule with no accountability. But to each their own.
Except many if not most of the self-proclaimed right-wing individual-liberty champions on this forum have varying degrees of autocratic and populist leanings, cheering hardliners like then ones mentioned in your post (Bolsonaro and Bukele).
That's a far more bizarre thing for me to reconcile. Supporting strongman politics just because it aligns with my views... no, thank you. Been there, seen that, doesn't end well. I don't like the government getting into my business but I dislike random populist bullshit even more.
I may be projecting somewhat, but I think they (people prone to populism) inherently recognize that unless one is a strongman of sorts, the chances of getting rolled over and flattened by the elite steamroller are running at about 100%. So, might as well support a strongman just in case he may be 'for real' because a weak one even if he/she is 'for real' will lose.
Most people who feel animosity to anything which threatens the elite have the pathetic notion that they are in this group, or at least favored by them. I'll bet that the elite's disdain for such dick-eaters is exceeds whatever they might feel toward the populists class of useless eaters by a mile. I'm not surprised in the least to see your attitude about that here.
I am surprised at the number of leftists I see on the forum.
I'm surprised that most people seem very right-wing. I understand the origins of bitcoin, but I don't understand why it should appeal solely to those on the far right.I vote left not because I want to bring about a Stalinist dystopia...
Lol, Cnut237, I haven't used your trigger word but you seem triggered. I repeat what I have said:
Bitcoin is much closer to an Austrian School of Economics conception than to a Keynesian conception.
This is not to say that it is impossible for any left-wing government to be Bitcoin-friendly. Nor do I mean to say that it is completely contradictory for someone to be a leftist and be on this forum and invest in Bitcoin, but it is a bit of a paradox.
The following is what I wanted to know, thanks:
Bitcoin in this context appeals to a leftist because it offers a route by which individuals gain some measure of control, free from the elitist tyranny of the ultra-rich.
And this also:
Except many if not most of the self-proclaimed right-wing individual-liberty champions on this forum have varying degrees of autocratic and populist leanings, cheering hardliners like then ones mentioned in your post (Bolsonaro and Bukele).
That's a far more bizarre thing for me to reconcile. Supporting strongman politics just because it aligns with my views... no, thank you. Been there, seen that, doesn't end well. I don't like the government getting into my business but I dislike random populist bullshit even more.
That's a far more bizarre thing for me to reconcile. Supporting strongman politics just because it aligns with my views... no, thank you. Been there, seen that, doesn't end well. I don't like the government getting into my business but I dislike random populist bullshit even more.
Just a clarification, it is not that I mention Bolsonaro and Bukelele in my post, I am citing another post on how they are favorable to Bitcoin. This does not mean that I like them or that I like all their political measures. I like that they support Bitcoin, yes.
I am surprised at the number of leftists I see on the forum. I mean people who in general believe that the state is the best guarantor of the progress of society, rather than being the particular decisions of individuals, which would be a more capitalist conception.
Except many if not most of the self-proclaimed right-wing individual-liberty champions on this forum have varying degrees of autocratic and populist leanings, cheering hardliners like the ones mentioned in the quote you posted (Bolsonaro and Bukele).
That's a far more bizarre thing for me to reconcile. Supporting strongman politics just because it aligns with my views... no, thank you. Been there, seen that, doesn't end well. I don't like the government getting into my business but I dislike random populist bullshit even more.
(edited for clarity)
I am surprised at the number of leftists I see on the forum.
I'm surprised that most people seem very right-wing. I understand the origins of bitcoin, but I don't understand why it should appeal solely to those on the far right.I mean people who in general believe that the state is the best guarantor of the progress of society, rather than being the particular decisions of individuals, which would be a more capitalist conception.
Perhaps this is the crux of it. I have always voted for left-wing parties, but I would disagree vehemently with anyone who believes that "the state is the best guarantor of the progress of society". Pure laissez-faire 'ancap' capitalism can't sit well with a left-winger, but capitalist democracy can and often does.As I've explained in other threads, I believe that capitalist democracy, whilst flawed, is the best system we have. My issue is with how the state behaves. Any absolute, pure system results in authoritarianism. We need a system where there are two opposing forces that work to cancel out each other's excesses. Surely this is a good idea?
A big distinction between myself and a right-winger, when looking at the government - and I suppose I am talking specifically about the UK - is that I don't see a force that is dedicated to holding business back and inhibiting progress, I see instead a bunch of privately-educated elitists (a lot of UK prime ministers went to the same fee-paying school as children) who are destined from birth to rise to power. And when they get there they just perpetuate the us-and-them divide. Corruption and cronyism are rife, meritocracy nonexistent, and the government works primarily to enrich themselves and their millionaire friends, and couldn't care less about the general population.
I vote left not because I want to bring about a Stalinist dystopia, but because I think progress works best when the government works for the people, as a brake against capitalist excesses, rather than as an enabler. Capitalism is great so long as it doesn't go too far. I mean, cartels and monopolies should be prevented, right?
Bitcoin in this context appeals to a leftist because it offers a route by which individuals gain some measure of control, free from the elitist tyranny of the ultra-rich.
A personal perspective, and one I'm willing to acknowledge is a generalisation rather than a universal truth, but I see right-wingers as being motivated purely by self-interest, against equality of opportunity, and in favour of entrenched advantage, and the right-wing conception of bitcoin as being a way to erode what fragile mechanisms exist to give everyone a fair chance in life, and a further way to f**k the undeserving poor.
I'm glad the forum doesn't allow negative merits, or I'd be drowning in them now
--
Edited for spelling. This often happens during a rant
You'll probably notice if you watch for long enough that the 'socialists' you see here are not real big fans of distributed crypto-currency technology or Bitcoin.
Bitcoin as a system was recognized by TPTB as a potential threat about the time I became aware of it. Had to do with an attempted WikiLeaks financial blockade.
By 2012-ish some methods to try to mitigate the threat were underway, but happily they largely failed because the primary development team were not dopes. The social manipulation of the community was a prong of the threat mitigation strategy. Some of the social media influence assets were assigned the 'bitcointalk books' and their participation waxes and wanes and the accounts (and personnel behind them) come and go. The players who are human will have other non-bitcointalk accounts to attend to as well.
I am surprised at the number of leftists I see on the forum. I mean people who in general believe that the state is the best guarantor of the progress of society, rather than being the particular decisions of individuals, which would be a more capitalist conception.
Precisely Bitcoin is something completely opposite to a left-wing conception of monetary policy. It does not depend on a state, but on how a multitude of individuals act in a decentralized manner.
Bitcoin is much closer to an Austrian School of Economics conception than to a Keynesian conception.
This thread has occurred to me because of something I read the other day:
By the way, the political party in government in El Salvador, which Hydrogen doubted, is right-wing:
"On June 1, 2019, Nayib Bukele under the banner of the GANA party became the first president of El Salvador ..." (Source)
"Grand Alliance for National Unity, GANA is a right-wing Salvadoran political party established in May 2010." (Source)
This is not to say that it is impossible for any left-wing government to be Bitcoin-friendly. Nor do I mean to say that it is completely contradictory for someone to be a leftist and be on this forum and invest in Bitcoin, but it is a bit of a paradox.
If you believe that the state is the best guarantor of progress and welfare, instead of getting involved in Bitcoin, you'd better support the centralized shitcoin that states are about to create, the digital dollar, the digital euro, the digital pound...and not a currency that takes power away from the state. A currency that is much more difficult to confiscate, and therefore to redistribute, with which it is much easier to cross borders to avoid paying taxes with huge amounts, etc.
I don't know how you reconcile one belief with another.
Precisely Bitcoin is something completely opposite to a left-wing conception of monetary policy. It does not depend on a state, but on how a multitude of individuals act in a decentralized manner.
Bitcoin is much closer to an Austrian School of Economics conception than to a Keynesian conception.
This thread has occurred to me because of something I read the other day:
If Bolsanaro is associated with this move. Brazil would be the latest "right wing" state to embrace bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. After "right wing" texas and florida. It is possible el salvador's leadership is also right wing leaning which could be part of the motive behind recently passed crypto mass adoption. I don't know enough about el salvador's political climate to say exactly what is happening there.
If such is the case, we could be witnessing a pattern where left wing china and its left wing banker allies oppose bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in places like nigeria where central banks moved to ban crypto. Left wing leaning states like new york and california are also known to be very unfriendly towards crypto with new york having outright banned stablecoins like tether and imposing strict anti crypto regulation in place.
While the right wing does the opposite by supporting and embracing bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. As seen by florida, texas and now brazil. All of which are heavily attacked by left wing media for various reasons.
That could be one of the most important emerging trends as far as cryptocurrencies go in 2021.
If such is the case, we could be witnessing a pattern where left wing china and its left wing banker allies oppose bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in places like nigeria where central banks moved to ban crypto. Left wing leaning states like new york and california are also known to be very unfriendly towards crypto with new york having outright banned stablecoins like tether and imposing strict anti crypto regulation in place.
While the right wing does the opposite by supporting and embracing bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. As seen by florida, texas and now brazil. All of which are heavily attacked by left wing media for various reasons.
That could be one of the most important emerging trends as far as cryptocurrencies go in 2021.
By the way, the political party in government in El Salvador, which Hydrogen doubted, is right-wing:
"On June 1, 2019, Nayib Bukele under the banner of the GANA party became the first president of El Salvador ..." (Source)
"Grand Alliance for National Unity, GANA is a right-wing Salvadoran political party established in May 2010." (Source)
This is not to say that it is impossible for any left-wing government to be Bitcoin-friendly. Nor do I mean to say that it is completely contradictory for someone to be a leftist and be on this forum and invest in Bitcoin, but it is a bit of a paradox.
If you believe that the state is the best guarantor of progress and welfare, instead of getting involved in Bitcoin, you'd better support the centralized shitcoin that states are about to create, the digital dollar, the digital euro, the digital pound...and not a currency that takes power away from the state. A currency that is much more difficult to confiscate, and therefore to redistribute, with which it is much easier to cross borders to avoid paying taxes with huge amounts, etc.
I don't know how you reconcile one belief with another.
Jump to: