Hi Max, you reveal in the brief excerpt I quote below you do not believe your own premise by the very fact you published this article thinking others might read it. So will you ask, why are you lying to yourself about the nature of reality? Clearly, you recognize the distinction between individual and collective is not binary. It is clear that the reactionary approach to counter collectivism is failing because there is a weak theory as to the nature of the transition, which is quite different from having whisps of a vision for a long term equilibrium.

Until you are ready to overcome the fact that the utopia you envision will not spontaneously emerge from a handful of people using software, you will not maximally contribute to advancing toward various intermediary steps. I am taking a different approach, working toward bringing autonomy in a hierarchical way, starting with the weapons systems that can help weaker nations regain greater sovereignty. This can percolate downward more easily than it is to simply hit tipping points preaching to the choir here.

You think politics doesn't work because you only see the "rules" and "forms" of politics you were told exist. I am making my own way, and building the weapons, not asking for policy changes, but providing tools to shape the nature of things to come.

"First, stop waiting for mass approval. Deprogram yourself from collectivist thought and hoping the masses will wake up. Do not waste time trying to fix politics, win over majorities, or receive mainstream validation. You are on your own for now."

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I'm not quite sure were we disagree?

The premise of the article is we need more people.

How do you define politics?

Given how information can spread, any attempt to influence another person, any exchange of information becomes sort of political.

My premise is that there is something psychological that makes bitcoin very difficult for people to understand, even if they seem like the sort of person who should get it. Rather than trying to get more people directly, bitcoiners can think about the values they have, and how that relates to the world can look like, and start building that world today even if people don't know they are moving toward decentralization.

For instance, if I can get various nations that have stronger anti-communist positions to have conventional weapons that secure their sovereignty, it is similar to an individual having firearms rather than calling the police. Given the massive swings in different regions, left or right, there are various places not necessarily to change people who cannot be changed, but to strengthen and align with those that are forming environments conducive to bitcoin by protecting property rights.

It is within right wing nations that the drive for individual sovereignty then can propagate.

Bitcoiners should actually become powerful, influencing political organizations and industrial production at a global scale. The fact that the Samurai devs are still in prison shows how weak bitcoiners are. The fact that no bitcoiner had control of a public company worth a billion or so in 2020 until Saylor came along shows the extent to which OG bitcoiners are not really doing much.

Instead of asking the world to adopt bitcoin and waiting for them, bitcoiners should just take the world. Every political influencer is usually controlled by capital, as is every industrialist, but bitcoin enables operating with an irreverence toward existing power structures that is magnetic in any field. The world is changing so quickly now, and so much wealth is being generated, an import export perspective means bitcoin grows purely on "exports" regardless of new adopters.

My premise is the "total crypto-anarchy" utopianism, which is always full of lots of hand waving, is not so much about true ideals, but an excuses for inaction in various domains.

I agree on many points.

Just a nuance is that I define "political means" as acquiring wealth through coercion, from Oppenheimer.

Well since taxes don't actually fund government spending, not much qualifies.