With my progressive friends (at least those who still talk to me) I always start with Occupy Wall Street. Throw around the term banksters when referring to big banks. Guaranteed they are at least suspicious of big banks. Explain how bitcoin was born post GFC and talk about Satoshi's message on the genesis block. Describe how the Too Big To Fail banks got bailed out, and the little guy got fucked. That's why bitcoin allows you to be your own bank. It will resonate with progressives.

as a progressive I see bitcoin as a fast track to near-free energy which could eliminate a pressing need for capitalism in the long run

I don't see any other plausible way there proposed by anyone on the left, could be ignorant, though

In Brazil, where I currently live, the worst thing is the possibility of the government confiscating your money. This was done in the late 1980's with many people's savings. Unfortunately, many still believe that the government will continue to be their friend, instead of understanding that it is the biggest problem of all.

Unbanked and remittances. Inflation in undeveloped countries that have no access to USD.

yeah boiling it down to the rich vs. poor seems to translate better in my experience too. Once hooking them there it's easier for me to draw in environmental points too, which also seem to resonate

I think #3 is compelling -- the neverending total war and global conflict is entirely a function unlocked by fiat, which is certainly something a progressive can get behind.

The thing that I'm not sure about, though, is the game theory of it -- you could have a country that stuck with a commodity money, and keep the assorted benefits of sound money, but if their "competitors" had access to this warmaking capability unlocked by the money printer, the gold standard peeps get weeded out of the evolutionary pool. On the short term, the ability to coordinate human action at scale in service of some small cadre of people is a massive advantage -- that's why it happened in the first place.

So I'm not sure what to think about this argument from a pragmatic perspective, even though it's true.

I personally start with #3 at the top. That's a topic about which no actual progressive can disagree with you. Then you can move to inflation, which is pretty much a slam dunk, whether you frame it as helping the rich or hurting the poor. Either way, you've got them hooked at this point in the conversation, assuming it's one being had in good faith (which is rare these days, especially in discussions with leftists).

Great list. US dollar dominance enables abuses of the global south through debt slavery via the IMF. This kinda touches all 4.

Another one is censorship resistance. Bitcoin has already helped women escape abusive marrages in nations were women lack basic freedoms.

Me ->Bitcoin Network -> you. Some small fees.

Or

Me -> my bank ->payment provider such as visa or whoever -> your bank -> you. With every single party aside from me and you skimming off the top.

Which one seems like a better system?

The main problem is people looking at everything through a political lens, almost in a tribal way. This is specially problematic for countries with a small number of political parties, and is horrific when the positioning of those parties changes over time due to unrelated interests and due to the dogma of the day.

Bitcoin doesn't have to solve all problems of society (those will require other measures and other tools as well), it just needs to be better than the existing tool/system for most use cases or at least for some important use cases.

And I would start there... let the people know the existing system, let them realize the problems of that system/tool, and then explain how Bitcoin can improve it.

Be pragmatic and realistic, not idealistic.

Bitcoin saves the environment by discouraging overconsumption.

Bitcoin is a tool for emancipation and self defense that can help the discriminated against the most: women, LGTBIQ+ persons, migrants, people under a genocide attack on their own country like Palestinians, etc.

It could also help countries to defend themselves against the IMF and the US sanctions that makes them suffer isolation and poverty, like Cuba, Venezuela, etc. And also against colonization and extractivism (the current form of slavery) by the US and Europe on the countries where the Federal Reserve exports the US inflation.

Bitcoin can help us fight against the environmental issues and solve the energy poverty some people and some regions suffer.

In essence, Bitcoin is a very powerful to non violently fight against the neo-liberalism which aim is to make the rich richer by extracting resources, time, work (about everything) from the rest.

I'm a biologist by education who cares about nature and the environment, but not a supporter of the green parties, which are part of the neo-liberal game as well, and a progressive, but not supportive of the supposed progressive parties, like the Democrat party in the US or the so called Socialist European party, which are also part of the same game. I'm mi opinion, Bitcoin aligns very well with the defense of the Human Rights and progressiveness.

Unfortunately, the majority of progressive people only here talking about Bitcoin being used to get rich fast, buy lambos, and make crypto parties on luxurious yachts in Monaco. But there are plenty of talking points (as you ask) that appeal to progressive people, only there aren't many of us (yet) who talk about these things in these terms. :-)

something like

"The Bitcoin network will be the first and probably the only globally adopted technology that will EVER become net carbon negative."

is a really challenging response to any progressive going on about Bitcoin's "wasteful" energy use. The "Energy use Bad" people are my favorite buttcoiners to crush with logic, facts and reason.

Definitely takes some follow up explanation, but they'll be so confused how you could claim that that they'll more than likely start asking questions and want you to explain the position... gets them into a position of wanting to listen (to argue) but they are still listening instead of waiting to argue their next point of contention.

Reasoning: Politicians that receive large donations end up controlled by donors and therefore, they serve the donors and not their constituency.

Separating money from state is key to solve this problem.

How do we solve this?

The only individuals in any "democratic" government across the world able to separate money from state are the law makers, which, by design, are the ones with the most donors, therefore, the chances that they will create laws with the intention to separate money from state are, IMO, zero.

A potential solution is a complete dissolution of government followed by a presidential executive order that makes it illegal for any law maker or politician to receive any donation making the allocation of money for political campaigns, for instance, to be funded by the state from corporate taxes collected and distributed equally among candidates. That would, IMO, be more "democratic"

I still get the impression that most progressives believe inflation is mainly driven by "corporate greed", so I don't bother with any argument that is inflation related.

Progressives are also no longer particularly anti-war, so preventing money-printed war funding isn't an argument I use either.

The argument I make with progressives kind of relates to point 4. I have an extremely controversial chronic illness that basically made it impossible for me to work any job. Even if I had found an employer willing to accommodate me I doubt I could have done much of anything. I could, however, slowly write code and stare at data and charts. And Bitcoin/crypto are one of the few if not the only industries that freely share data that can be analyzed for trading purposes. So that's how I make my living. I would be dead without Bitcoin. And after a 15ish year period of severe disability, I'm recovered to the point where I can start living something of a life again. Progressives find this very compelling.

I think there are many other ways an open and private financial system can help people with controversial disabilities, but trading is how I've been able to take advantage of it.

bitcoin is apolitical. sound money is good for everyone. inflation is bad for almost everyone. framing it in a political light is unnecessary.

don't make assumptions based on political rhetoric. i'm very progressive politically. i don't hate property rights or self-sovereignty, i just think the ultra-wealthy and corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. i have no love for the state, i just disagree with spending hundreds of billions on war, and next to nothing on social programs. i don't believe everyone should be forced to be secular, i just believe freedom of religion means freedom to practice your own religion, not impose your religious beliefs on others.

also don't assume progressives are an ideological monolith. i voted for bernie twice, but i also own a firearm, eat red meat constantly, and think the current obsession with politically correct speech is silly.

that being said, i would generally agree with what others have brought up. illustrating that inflation disproportionately hurts the poor and enables endless wars, that the banking system is corrupt and works against the interests of everyday citizens, and that mining is paving the way for green energy, are all points that would probably resonate with progressives.

Tell them their money is safer in 30 year savings bonds at 3.8%. Don't let them know that eventually they will be renting their orifaces to bitcoin hodlers just to afford bread.

I openly talk on any and all topics that a progressive would bring up I let them do alot of the talking and if they steer it to wrong information I'll simply keep it calm and collective, and back up with truth and fact for example when someone brings up capitalism I'll simply say nooo we have been taught the wrong thing its not capitalism your referring to its cronyism buddies taking care of buddies these businesses that are to big to fail. Usually no one argues with me on that one actually haven't gotten any push back from saying that.. also if someone brings up Bezos or Elon I simply reply well what if you achieved success then you have all these people saying you have to much you have to give some back...that also hits alot of people

I start with “fuck banks” and they’re usually on board

You'll get more orange pills to happen if you screen out people who politicise money.

The rest of the world is tired of it.

You can lead a horse to water but these people aren't thirsty for market solutions.

You will own something and be happy.

We Bitcoin so they can't finance wars.

Hard money disincentivices mindless consumerism

Anyone who thinks more government will help people will not be able to understand Bitcoin until they start to understand reality

Aside from ceding all rights, responsibilities and freedoms to the state isn't very progressive?

Why do I want to appeal to progressives?