Half-formed thought, interested in feedback. The main debate of our current times is individualism vs collectivism. We see it in _many_ aspects of modern life and politics. Two obvious ones:

Bitcoin vs fiat: people holding Bitcoin believe that we have a right for the purchasing power of our money to go up, not down, over time. It's a selfish (in the good way) approach. Fiat, by contrast, is about giving power of money printing to the central collective to take care of everyone. It's altruistic (in the worst way possible).

Gun control: those wanting to hold guns want the ability to protect themselves, end of story. Those wanting gun control look at the (IMO totally made up) risks of widespread gun ownership and say that, even though an individual may be able to protect himself through personal gun ownership, society as a whole will be better if we all disarm.

Does this paradigm work, and does it extend to other political and other disagreements out there today?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

You could add the consequences of human error to both as well: a bitcoin mistake can "kill" the entire family's stored wealth, and a gun mistake can kill actual people, but its not limited to the family. The burned bitcoin helps make everyone else's bitcoin worth more, but the burned human is pretty negative for everyone impacted.

Interesting philosophical thought experiment.

It's just a mirror copy of on and off, life, and death, protons, and electrons, good, and evil.

Everything else between that is just a state shift of one property transitioning into the other property.