Discussion
I used to believe this.
What changed
I read some history books. It turns out that laws only protect those who establish or instigate them. Thinking in terms of individualism and collectivism is just residual statism because it hinges on the notion that what the general populace thinks or does is important. This is incorrect.
So if I read that correctly, individualism and collectivism get trumped by authoritarianism every time. But isn’t it a different dimension? Sorta like the political compass.
In a way, yes, but it goes deeper than that. Libertarian styles also define rules. It's the same game.
Where do bitcoin rules sit.
That's a great question!
It depends on what you mean by "rules" and "law." An important distinction to consider is:
- de jure vs. de facto.
- laws of nature vs. laws of men
- forced rules vs. agreed-upon rules.
Unfortunately, Bitcoin (like most things) doesn't clearly fall into one category. It's always an amalgam.
So there are exceptions to the authoritarian rule
Yes, but that doesn't mean that violence and exploitation are off the table.
The least authoritarian society will still exploit and use violence and laws will reflect and enable this.
Isn't this fine in concept? Especially when we factor in nations originally being a homogenous group? Why shouldn't groups of likeminded racially similar people be making rules to protect themselves? How is this a bad thing? Don't you make rules for your house?
