Sincere question for progressive bitcoiners: if you could press a button that would end all fiat central banks immediately, would you press it no matter what? What if that caused an increase in inequality? What if all federal social programs would get defunded? What if taxation as we know it now would be impossible? Because if you would, then you are not a progressive anymore.
Discussion
I am probably still progressive(ish) because I’m concerned if we press a button like that it’ll be catastrophic for millions of Americans.
The pure libertarian argument for the vulnerable in society isn’t a good enough answer for me in 2024, without government supported intervention that is
Over a longer time frame, sure, but what does that look like? We’ll see, I’m open.
Fair enough and thanks for the response. But then I have to ask - what is the ultimate goal for progressive bitcoiners? I’m here for separation of money and state and I see that inevitably leading to outcomes progressives would not be happy with.
Separate money from the state and see humanity flourish. Same goals.
The state may or may not play a role. Personally IDGAF, but I care that humans have what they need to thrive and be free.
I align more with left libertarian/libertarian socialism in that regard.
why is the ability for a government to help people always associated with money printing? cities in the US used to pride themselves on the large beautiful institutions they would build for the mentally challenged before the prison industrial complex took over that role. these facilities were made on a harder money standard. money is used to express the values of the holder and just because we are currently told that is must be printed to help people doesn't mean its true. helping people is a choice regardless of the hardness of the money.
What I want to see are governance systems that manage our physical, legal, social and financial infrastructure in ways that are responsive, representative and responsible. The current "governments" on Earth have been failing miserably in those goals for hundreds of years, so if we could wipe them all away and replace them with systems that actually do the job we hire/elect them to do, that would be a step forward.
With a 20lb sledge hammer, multiple times.
Yes, it would cause short term inequality to spike, and it would cause hurt to a lot of people while the world adjusted to the new paradigm. It would be worth it.
Whether federal social programs got defunded would be a choice, and I would advocate that they not be ended, but that's just my voice. Taxation would not be impossible, people would just have a clearer understanding of where the money comes from and where the money is going. I personally don't have an objection to sending money to help "those people over there", as long as I know that those people actually need the help.
I don't think you are using the same definition of 'progressive' that I use. I don't know what definition you are using, because a balanced budget and transparent global financial systems that ensure that capital flows towards good causes and wealth/power doesn't get concentrated in fewer and fewer hands has been the entire purpose behind the progressive movement going back to the Magna Carta in 1215.
I’m using “progressive” in the history-of-political-thought sense, referring to the movement that began self-identifying as Progressives in the US at the end of the nineteenth century. See https://mises.org/library/book/progressive-era
So you're using a definition of Progressive written and perfected by people who self-identify has hating so called progressives? How is that supposed to bring you closer to an understanding of our perspective? All it does is drive a wedge between you and the people you are talking to. Just from what I can see in the link text without clicking on the article, I can see that the author has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Institutionalized racism? Totally against what progressives stand for.
If you want to understand something, don't come at it from the perspective of someone against that something. It really doesn't help.
No. I’m talking specifically about a group of people who called themselves Progressives and started the Progressive Movement. The most well-known and prominent of this first wave were Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
Ok, but Progressives and Conservatives are English words that are entirely subjective. Teddy was a progressive for his time, I'll give him that. But the progressive movement that he identified with was MUCH older than he was, and he simply grabbed the flag and moved to the head of the march, he didn't actually start it. When he was a 7 year old boy in 1865 looking out his window in New York as the coffin of Abraham Lincoln rolled by, the Progressive Movement was already strong. Just because history books identify the "Progressive Era" as starting in 1901 doesn't mean that the Progressive Movement isn't older than that. It's much older than that. The American Revolution itself was a Progressive rebellion.
And Wilson was the nominee of the Democratic Party, not the Progressive Party. He had some progressive policies in his platform, but he was being led by progressives in Congress more than anything else, something that is forgotten today by too many.
The natural tendency of capitalism is to concentrate wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. The effort to reverse that trend and distribute wealth and power into more and more hands is at the core of the Progressive Movement, and the struggle between the two forces has existed for as long as money has been in existence.
Subjective indeed. You sound more like a commie with your comments on wealth distribution and the struggle against capitalism.
That kind of attitude makes it very difficult to have a reasonable conversation. The world is not black and white.
If you're not interested in reasonable conversation about the issues, I'll just move on.