Which argument?
Discussion
That money isn’t broken.
Fiat is an instrument of extraction, and people are aggressing upon you when they print money.
Broken is a morally neutral word which points to a mean’s inability to fulfill its end.
The money is doing the only this it was designed to do, it’s working perfectly. It’s achieving an evil end.
That. is the the ace of spades.
Since it’s not true, it’s not sharp or effective rhetoric.
Worst still, “broken” is a euphemism which in reality hurts bitcoin advocacy by surrendering the moral high ground.
It lets central bankers and politicians off the ethical hook.
And I think that’s why we have <1% adoption.
Ok then, in your content and educational materials and podcast, you educate as you see fit. That’s why I love free markets - do as you wish while others do the same.
🤷♂️
You’re right it’s a free market.
I assume those advocating for bitcoin want to be effective, want to win, and help people understand bitcoin.
If that is true, then we should arm ourselves with the best arguments, in order to be the most effective.
The logic is valid or invalid.
The argument true or false.
If I’m wrong, which I could be, I want to know, so I can get right.
If that’s not your game, my apologizes for misreading the room.
Sacrifice the macro for the moral.