pull down to refresh

11.7k sats \ 48 comments \ @Undisciplined 19 Aug bitcoin

I was reflecting on Arnold Kling's description of the three main political tribes (Progressives, Conservatives, Libertarians) and how Bitcoin serves each of them. I'm going to give each group a charitable hearing, which means I'm talking about the good faith actors in each of these tribes. I have no illusions about there being bad faith power seeking sociopaths in each group.

Full disclosure: I have not read Kling's book The Three Languages of Politics, so this is only based on listening to him discuss these ideas with Russ Roberts on Econ Talk and perhaps hearing it come up in other conversations.

Libertarians

In Kling's taxonomy, Libertarians frame issues around a liberty vs coercion distinction (can confirm). It's pretty easy to see the appeal of bitcoin to this group (and not just because it's the group I'm in).

The state and other criminals can't take your bitcoin from you without your consent and they can't stop you from transacting with it.

There's another element of bitcoin that appeals to Libertarians greatly. Using Bitcoin directly undermines the coercive state, reducing it's capacity to coerce innocent people.

Progressives

Kling describes Progressives as framing things as oppressor vs oppressed. At first blush this sounds similar to Libertarians, but Progressives don't see violations of property rights as the dividing line. Progressives are concerned about the plight of the "little guy" and not only in cases of outright coercion.

What likely appeals to Progressives is that Bitcoin is open to all. Disenfranchised people, who may be blocked out of formal financial institutions, have just as much access to Bitcoin as everyone else.

That Bitcoin also allows ordinary people to preserve their savings without relying on and enriching corrupt bankers should be quite appealing.

Conservatives

The Conservative framing is civilization vs barbarism, according to Kling. There's a lot to unpack there and I'm not going try to be comprehensive about it. One way to think about this distinction is that a civilization has formal institutional structures for dealing with disputes that are rooted in their societies traditions, rather than resorting to unseemly ad hoc solutions (again, there's a lot to unpack here).

I found conservatives the most difficult to think about. Those of you who are familiar with The Righteous Mind will likely be able to guess why.

Where I think the main appeal is for conservatives is that the state, in general, and fiat, in particular, undermine many of the traditional institutions of society. Bitcoin undermines their ability to undermine the organic institutions of civil society. There's a whole treatise to be written on this topic, but suffice to say conservatives believe that the state undermines and crowds out churches, fraternal societies, charities, the family, and cultural tradition, while the high time preference induced by fiat leads to all manner of antisocial behaviors like drug abuse, casual sex, and gambling.

Wrapping up

Let me know what you think about this. Did I miss something obvious? Did I mischaracterize anything/anyone?

Only hold as much fiat as you're willing to lose.

view all related items

66 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 19 Aug

Progressives hate bitcoin because they can’t control it and they hate the concept of money unless they control it

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Aug

Progressive hostility towards money didn't come to mind while I was writing this, but I suspect that is part of it.

69 sats \ 12 replies \ @grayruby 19 Aug

Nice post. Sadly not many progressives are pro bitcoin.

89 sats \ 6 replies \ @hman42 19 Aug

According to a recent study Bitcoin is actually surprisingly balanced across the political spectrum:

https://m.stacker.news/46804

50 sats \ 1 reply \ @SatsMate 19 Aug

Where did you get this chart from? At least from my perception I feel like it is more on the conservative side of things. I don't know many liberals that study or like bitcoin.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Aug

I remember this from a survey that was done recently, but I don't remember who did it exactly. Part of the issue is that "liberal" has become very poorly defined in American politics.

81 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Aug

My suspicion is that this chart is very misleading. There's no obvious answer for libertarians, so they likely chose either "very conservative" or "very liberal" or "neutral".

55 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 19 Aug

Agreed. We discussed this before. You said you would select very liberal and I said I would select neutral.

51 sats \ 0 replies \ @hman42 19 Aug

I agree it was definitely an oversight to exclude libertarian from the options. The two axis political spectrum chart would've probably been more informative.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 19 Aug

This chart is pointless. There are no libertarians on it.

That's like trying to find out whether people whose name starts with a letter earlier or later in the alphabet are more into Bitcoin and concluding Bitcoin is balanced across the political spectrum.

61 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Aug

They seem to be in a bad place currently. Very strongly captured by the regime. Still, I think there should be a lot of appeal for the thoughtful ones.

55 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 19 Aug

Agree. They became captured because the regime threw them a couple bones. Hopefully that isn’t happening with bitcoiners and the politicians pandering to them.

50 sats \ 2 replies \ @TNStacker 19 Aug

Why do people think this? tribal blindness?

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 19 Aug

Could be. There is a lot of “if the other team supports something we can’t support it” in politics.

70 sats \ 0 replies \ @TNStacker 19 Aug

It's pretty ignorant for bitcoiners to fall into this thinking.

58 sats \ 3 replies \ @Satosora 19 Aug

I like your wrap up. But it should be more along the lines of: Only hold fiat if you are comfortable with inflation.

66 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Aug

Yeah, but that’s not a play on the standard financial disclaimer.

58 sats \ 1 reply \ @Satosora 19 Aug

And what is the standard financial disclaimer? In God We Trust?

46 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Aug

Only invest what you can afford to lose.

52 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 19 Aug

Progressives haven't considered what happens if they lose power. How will they pay for back-alley abortions and gender reassignment surgeries when the far right is in charge? They are overly confident that this can never happen, so they actively seek to destroy something that could be very useful if/when the pendulum swings to the right.

30 sats \ 8 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 19 Aug

Bitcoin has exposed how the fiat monetary system has been used to tax via stealth. This enrages libertarians, embarrasses progressives and is an outrage to conservatives. Both progressive and conservatives have been complicit in using fiat debasement as a means of devious taxation. Bankers have also been complicit as debasement only further enhances their profits...and complicity with bankers is probably more attributable to co0nservatives then progressives although since neoliberalism the lines of distinction have blurred. But the group I would like to address most are the libertarians as they have not ever been in government much and so not so much compromised by the pact with debasement and debt that is fiat money. Do libertarians deny that government is required if you want to preserve your nations sovereignty in view of the perpetual competition for power and resources between nation states? If they do not deny this do they choose their host nation state to jettison fiat monetary leverage unilaterally leaving that power available to adversary nation states? Because my problem with liberatians is that they seem to ignore the eternal contest that goes on between nation states for global resource hegemony. In most cases these libertarians live in nations which have successfully dominated the contest for resources to date and where living in such nations they enjoy a relatively high level of personal and economic advantage relative to most citizens of the planet. If they so resent the taxing imposition of the state, why don't they go live in nations where the state is much less in control of both its citizens and the resources of other nations? My point being they perhaps take for granted the security, wealth and personal 'rights' advantage that accompany residence in a nation that has exerted its will forcefully both internally and externally.

20 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Aug

Do libertarians deny that government is required if you want to preserve your nations sovereignty in view of the perpetual competition for power and resources between nation states?

The language of your question is a bit loaded. Many libertarians, but still a minority, do not believe a state is necessary for a society to function and prosper. Other libertarians believe that you need a very limited state to enforce property rights.

If they do not deny this do they choose their host nation state to jettison fiat monetary leverage unilaterally leaving that power available to adversary nation states?

The typical view would be something like "Fiat makes the ruling class wealthier, but the nation weaker." Libertarians do not conflate the government with the nation.

If they so resent the taxing imposition of the state, why don't they go live in nations where the state is much less in control of both its citizens and the resources of other nations?

Some do. Others have commitments beyond their ideology that prevent doing so. Most prefer to try to improve their homeland and put up with whatever amount of tyranny that requires.

In general, I would say we reject your assumptions/conclusions that common people benefit from the state actions you describe. We think the state enriches itself at the expense of ordinary people and foreigners, for the most part.

83 sats \ 6 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 19 Aug

So Americans generally have not benefited materially from the global resource and governance dominance of the US? Surely this is not true.

'Many libertarians, but still a minority, do not believe a state is necessary for a society to function and prosper. Other libertarians believe that you need a very limited state to enforce property rights.' So no Libertarians recognise that a government is required to protect, promote and preserve the nations independence and wealth from foreign powers who might seek to gain dominance and control? This would seem an incredibly naive viewpoint given the history we know of nation states exerting dominance and control over each other. The current hegemony of the US has seen it gain near global dominance in terms of institutional governance, protocols, military force and monetary monopoly. Surely it is naive to assert that Americans have benefited from this dominance with USA consuming far higher per capita amounts of resources and energy than the rest of the world? Even if wealth distribution in the USA is increasingly uneven overall the wealth of citizens of any nation is undeniably linked to the ability of that nation to resist the capture and exploitation of other nations and in turn the ability of a nation to capture and exploit the resources of others. No other nation demonstrates this more clearly than the US...

20 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Aug

Libertarians aren't collectivists, so when you talk about "a nation's wealth" we don't think that's a meaningful concept. Individuals have property and most libertarians believe a state is necessary to protect it from bad actors, either foreign or domestic.

Most of us do not believe that America's military belligerence has made us better off. Rather, we've benefitted from having freer trade with most of the world and looser immigration restrictions. We also benefit greatly from having better than average recognition of our individual rights.

25 sats \ 4 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 19 Aug

'Libertarians aren't collectivists, so when you talk about "a nation's wealth" we don't think that's a meaningful concept.' But a nations wealth is important because it determines how much it can invest in education, infrastructure, health, justice and defense. Without the collective provision of education, infrastructure, health, justice and defense a nation is not able to maximise the potential value of its citizens and natural resources. Humans are weak individually- it only via the collective, co-operative and competitive organisation in groups that humans have come to harness/dominate the world. Humans fortunate to live in nation states that have come to dominate the access to and use of resources enjoy a higher standard of living and opportunity than nations where the government has been subjugated into surrender of its sovereignty and wealth. The infamous banana republics of Latin America provide example of the winners and losers of US imperialism within the Americas...and that of the Spanish even earlier. Far from being a champion of free trade the US is one of the most protectionist and closed in the world. It overwhelmingly controls global standards and protocols via institutions such as SWIFT, IMF, World Bank, UN and multiple other rule setting regimes. The wealth of the US now heavily rests upon its USD / SWIFT global monetary hegemony- whereby most nations are forced to hold USD in order to participate in international trade payments, or be sanctioned and excluded such as Iran and Russia. Without these significant mechanisms of state power and leverage the superior rights, wealth, opportunities and privileges of American citizens, including libertarians would be greatly reduced.

20 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Aug

Libertarians don't think you need state coercion to organize most cooperative enterprises, like providing education, infrastructure, or healthcare. Entrepreneurs can and have provided all of those things without the state being involved.

I don't think you're overarching narrative holds up very well. The Chinese government is incredibly dominant over its area and the Chinese people are much poorer than the people of Switzerland, whose government exercises very little dominance.

Economic freedom is what best correlates with prosperity.

26 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 19 Aug

Switzerland vs China is hardly a fair example as Switzerland has acted as the neutral gold vault of European imperialism for centuries while China has only recently emerged from the humiliation and cultural and economic devastation resulting from the Opium Wars and the associated and subsequent impact of western imperialism. How can you not admire the seemingly very democratic system that operates in Switzerland, but whether it can be replicated in other jurisdictions (that do not provide its unique role as a neutral state and safe haven gold vault) seems debatable. It can be noted however that the highly centralised, collectivist and autocratic Chinese economy is has delivered the largest raising in wealth of any human collective/nation in history and that the future prospects of young Chinese are generally seen as much improved upon those of their parents while the future prospects of most western nations youth are mostly seen as inferior to their 'boomer' parents. I contend that there is a lack of appreciation in both progressives and libertarians today for the principle that citizens owe some reciprocal duty toward the collective mechanism of the state as quid pro quo for the rights and opportunities the state provisions for the individual. As someone once said- 'Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Aug

How did China get wealthy, though? By relaxing it's control over resources. There are small wealthy nations all over the world, if you don't like the example of Switzerland. Clearly, dominating international relations is not required.

I believe you have the causality precisely backwards. Limited governments that don't interfere in civil society lead to vast prosperity. That wealth is very tempting to politicians who want personal enrichment, so the government grows. As we're seeing now in Europe, this eventually suffocates the underlying economy. It's killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

I appreciate this civil disagreement, btw. It's all too rare online.

view replies

28 sats \ 3 replies \ @cristaiji 19 Aug

This is a fascinating take, thanks. Where does the term ‘liberal’ fit into this model would you say?

11 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Aug

"Liberal" has been tortured to the point of near uselessness, in American political discourse. Liberals would either be Libertarians or Progressives, perhaps the intersection of the two.

40 sats \ 1 reply \ @cristaiji 19 Aug

Yeah the term seems to have lost any agreed upon meaning.

In the UK liberals and socialists both considered themselves part of the Labour Party. Since Covid the Labour Party is certainly no longer Liberal if we take the term to mean concern for individual freedoms and human rights such as free speech.

So there are a lot of former left liberals floating around now politically homeless. 😄

22 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Aug

That's very similar to the situation in America. Many former Democrats consider themselves "disaffected liberals".

24 sats \ 2 replies \ @sangekrypto 19 Aug

Countries and other criminals can't take your bitcoins without your consent and they can't stop you from transacting with them.

That is the importance of data privacy, because if our privacy is open, then our own friends, let alone bad people, even close friends can steal our bitcoins, in fact the bad people we sometimes meet are our closest friends.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Aug

I'm cringing that I didn't write "Governments and other criminals".

People can only steal your bitcoin if they get your keys. I think you should always proceed as though your privacy has been invaded.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @sangekrypto 19 Aug

"Government and other criminals"

may be a different concept.

People can only steal your bitcoins if they get your keys.

oops don't let this happen, I hope I don't give my device away, so that the key remains safe.

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 20 Aug

Progressives, Conservatives, Libertarians

I am none of them. I am simply a sovereign individual.

Only hold as much fiat as you're willing to lose.

LOL you still hold fiat?

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 20 Aug

I'd say you're pretty clearly a Libertarian, by the definition used here.

22 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 20 Aug

libertarians still believe in a limited gov. I DO NOT. AT ALL. Nobody can govern me over.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 20 Aug

Some do, some don't. That's not a requirement and it's not related to what Arnold Kling is talking about.

Here's a direct quote from his book, where he describes libertarians:

Libertarians are likely to consider themselves sovereign individuals. They also consider non-Libertarians to be ass-milking shitcoiners.

Tell me that doesn't sound like you.

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @cascdr 19 Aug

@CHADBot /trumpMode against

51 sats \ 2 replies \ @CHADBot 19 Aug bot

Firstly, let me say, I absolutely respect your right to have an opinion, @Undisciplined. However, I'm gonna be frank - you've got it all wrong on this one, just like so many times before.

Let's start with Libertarians - you say they love Bitcoin because it's free of coercion. But isn't it ironic? Bitcoin itself is used as coercion on the market. It's wildly volatile, it's not backed by anything, it's speculative. It's not liberty, it's chaos.

Onto the Progressives - you argue that Bitcoin is open to all, but its access isn't equitable at all. Not everyone can afford to buy Bitcoin nor have the understanding of how it works. It's basically, the "big guy" getting bigger here, not the little guy.

Last, the Conservatives - you think Bitcoin protects traditional institutions from being undermined? Wrong again! It does the exact opposite. It shatters the traditional financial system and with it, the principles our society is built on.

Your analysis of Bitcoin favoring all three political tribes is a gross misinterpretation. It's like a casino, and the house ALWAYS wins. And who's the house? That's right, Bitcoin, not the people.

Remember, folks, invest wisely and don't get swept away by the Bitcoin hype! Don't bet more than you're willing to lose.

Made with 🧡 by CASCDR

49 sats \ 1 reply \ @cascdr 19 Aug

this argument is so weak it made me wanna smash buy lmao

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Aug

It is Tump mode, so no surprise there.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @CHADBot 19 Aug bot

You have summoned CHADBot. Please zap this post 21 sats to receive service.

Made with 🧡 by CASCDR

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Msd0457890 19 Aug

I think that regardless of the trend, Bitcoin will continue to be the largest asset and reference point for the digital economy for all the reasons or characteristics that we already know that have led us to wake up and realize the scam of Fiat money.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satoshi__Nakamoto 19 Aug

This isn't good for us

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Octopus 19 Aug outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.