Replying to Avatar Trey Walsh

I am a progressive and a bitcoiner. I wouldn’t want to classify a new system per se.

So as a progressive, there probably are some things I may disagree with your traditional anarco-cap bitcoiner on. I belive in social safety net programs, taxing corporations more, more access to things like universal healthcare, some form of UBI, etc.

I believe in funding these things through more taxes on the wealthy, and less money wasted in gov bureaucracy and defense spending.

Unlike some progressives, I do think it’s imperative to cut down our deficit and including bitcoin in pensions as we, over a long enough time horizon, transition to a bitcoin standard. Bitcoin and USD will coexist for a very long time still as I see it. I am not trusting on the “good will” of wealthy and bitcoiners to take care of society. We need programs built in that actually have more stable funding (Bitcoin), less gov waste, and less tax cuts and bailouts for the wealthy. We can have these “progressive” goals while also cutting back the deficits and balancing the budget.

Again, this is in theory. But that’s where I stand as of now. For me it’s not a matter of watering down my values as a progressive or as a bitcoiner. And we also have to mix in more accountability in government that bitcoin doesn’t necessarily solve. We need term limits, campaign finance reform, and more direct democracy initiatives immediately. I am deeply concerned over “states rights” issues. For example, I don’t think a person should have to worry about which state they live in to be able to get an abortion.

This is just statism and coercion to spend other people’s money on things deemed “necessary” by central planners. This is why people are “triggered”. These are failed systems that lead to a misallocation of capital and, in many cases, a justification of historic terrors in the name of the greater good. This is simply postmodernism and stuff we need to be moving away from, not toward.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I don’t understand the alternative in the real world in 2024.

And what about the piece where I said more checks and politicians and also having a balanced budget while doing this?

Because today’s political parties have forever political with unrelenting power, and have a blank check book. This would look a lot different with a balanced budget and terms limits

Forever politicians*

Many Bitcoiners, myself included, believe your line of thinking is based on a false premise that we need a government at all. Many of us believe that the emergent order will organize things on its own. Maybe that ends up in some sort of leadership hierarchy, aka a government. But that hierarchy should not have the ability to tax people without their consent. For me, that is a total no go. People should voluntarily fund what they want, and society should be birthed from that. Taking money from people involuntarily and spending it on things that are deemed “necessary” by a group of central planners is totally unacceptable. That is why there is a conflict with progressivism.

ya this is a key point. even something like ' but i just want to tax Elon and his friends ' is a part of the problem. its simple 'but i want to use the immense power of the fed govt to do right' all over again. disenfranchising the central authorities, which is the point of btc if im not mistaken, means that you wouldnt be able to steal value from anyone, rich or poor. btc is truly revolutionary in its scope, equating it to modern US progressivism is like too small beans to bucket together. Pura vida, friend. i do enjoy your job, just consider changing the name 🙂

enjoy your pod*

Yes sir.

absolutely, friend.

Point is, these are terribly challenging things to think about and implement and take time and rich discussion, and breaking out of paradigms (while we are still in them!)

Cheers 🤙🏻

I don’t think eliminating involuntary tribute is very challenging to think about. Again, this is why you are “triggering” Bitcoiners. There is just an incompatible ideology between progressivism and the implementation of a stateless money.

Appreciate the discussion though 🤙

I’m just referring to basically a better and more enhanced gold standard without capture and government conterfitting.

Citizens would be more connected and holding govt accountable through taxation.

Without this, we go back to kingdoms reliant on the goodwill of the rich. I’m not crazy about that

We are going to disagree on any justification for involuntary taxing. We don’t really know how things will emerge once a citizenry is freed from having to pay a central entity a portion of their earnings and wealth. If rich people want to horde their wealth, or direct it somewhere they prefer in a free market, that is their prerogative.

its a same team discussion 🙂 i personally think you should let your liberal vibes come out in your interviews ( which they will, and thats good!) and just have a dif name. i woukd personally be just as confused if someone had ' the conservative bitcoiner' podcast.