Folks get triggered when I say I’m a progressive. I can understand that. But know, this word has a rich history, particularly the progressives in the late 19th and early 20th century who fought for peace, fought for workers rights, supported early immigrants to America, believed in science and the arts, and more.

It was a movement, community, culture, that was above and beyond political parties. It was an idea of what our future can and should be. That’s the kind of progressive I am.

Nowadays, you have “progressive politicians,” that I can sum up in one sentence:

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”

We need solutions over ideology.

People over campaign rhetoric.

Political party cliques do not change my conviction as a progressive.

Bitcoiners are forging a new path 🧡

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Tons of snowflakes on here triggered when you say simple shit like racism is real 😂

sort of like how the left gets triggered by the word "capitalism", yeah. As if they have a clue what capitalism is in the first place.

I hear you, I am a bit more empathetic to those folks because people have been personally screwed by crony capitalism and don’t know why.

I too am skeptical of capitalism as a solution for all, to be frank, but see bitcoin as a better /more fair way to test its merits.

Thanks for sharing. If folks, myself included, associate what you described with the current politicos yall have branding and messaging work to do.

The word has been co-opted by uneducated authoritarians and depressed internet trolls (*cough* bluesky *cough*)

I prefer the term classic liberal for progressives who have a brain

Now progressive basically means Marxist imo

An liberals make me think of neo-cons and forever wars 😂

It's true

What do you consider the tenets of “progressivism”, as you describe it, to be? The common meaning amongst society is one of top down control, state actions to influence individual decision making, and forced acceptance of progressive “truths”. If you are a true believer in individual rights and a true free market, I think you’d be better off calling yourself something else. It seems like you are trying to justify a terrible system by ascribing virtuous beliefs to a non-virtuous ideology that has led to untold death and suffering.

what makes a prpgressive bitcoiner unique or different than a bitcoiner, in your own words? using specific examples would help me understand why you say it, i still dont really understand..genuinely asking as someone who was a Bernie progressive in a life before bitcoin / anarchy.

in a reverse way as cipher's lines in the matrix:

"the codes all look different but all i see is statist, statist, statist"

To me, it's the ability and willingness to use Critical Thinking.

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.

Anarco-commune is a good aim as we become self sovereign individuals. Imho

I think those *voluntary* communities as they sprout up should have every right to exist and flourish

I am also a big belive in live and let live

“But Trey your approach to taxes!” Yeah, I’m talking about Elon musk and fucking major corporations who have had it far too easy the past 50+ years while everything else in our country crumbles to pieces.

It wasn't capitalism that built the interstate system, it was the war machine. For those companies that have lived off the US taxpayer, it's time to start building back.

In Canada, I have watched any investment in the nation leave. We simply tax there's no invest, and the promise of a new life in Canada is a dream. Hopefully with progressive investment in the needed infrastructure the USA can keep it's business running. Otherwise tax avoidance will run rampant and you will experience the same drain on productivity.

hopefully free economic zones can help both our nations.

I think too what’s tough is I’m describing systems that don’t yet exist and never have but what we should strive toward, at least in the US.

Open, democratic, term limits, balanced budgets, tax codes that work, programs that are effective as possible?

The US is a very robust set of checks and balances. The institutions are still very strong. I do like our ability to run until you're voted out. The head of state 2-term policy is a strange one for me. Beyond that, I think you are on the right track.

The democratic institutions need to hold the elected officials more constitution, I think report cards would help. I still don't understand why we can't create projects that have a tax to pay for them that sunsets once the total, plus matainance is collected.

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.

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.

Actually got a question (all good faith 😊), would you consider a peak society one that does all transactions on Bitcoin or Monero or whatever.

Secondly, how would tax revenue be raised then (for said social programs)?

Asking for revenue?

Translation: Forced

The society will be more like your government try to robe everything you have and you trying to keep and hide what you can... oh it's already here, Gold, Silver and Monero fix it (Bitcoin is transparent so you are fucked)

I would say I see bitcoin as the medium of exchange when it transitions from solely store of value (as most people see it today) to medium of exchange where it holds purchasing power but doesn’t have the crazy early currency swings we see today.

And I would say we raise taxes the same way we do now, in various ways. That’s up for debate, but finding a balance of taxation that works and is most effective (is income tax and low wage workers effective? Nah I don’t think so. Sales and other taxes and wealthier individuals? Yeah probably. Plenty of room for discussion there). My first question is, ok raise taxes , but for what? For wars, corporate bailouts, and servicing our debt? Let’s get out of that death spiral.

Society needs to see government as its government, democracy, and reflection of it serving us, to then accept taxation. Otherwise, we have what we have today which is many people saying “what I’m I paying for exactly?”

I was thinking more about how to enforce that as a reality given the crytographic security advantages of this currency over, well, a bank that can be forcer by the governent to freeze a person's account, of whom hasnt been paying their taxes.

Effectively, how do you see this working is what i am more about asking

Oh I see.

Well, it’ll be trickier for sure. But how do governments enforce this today? If you don’t pay, prison, property seizure, etc. bitcoin won’t remove that possibility where there are laws and states.

Btw, not saying that should happen or be an advocate for that! Just saying technically they would use laws and law enforcement to enforce, even if they couldn’t actually obtain your bitcoin.

Well, it is potentially easier to launder bitcoin and even easier to do huge transactions to circumvent normal payment techniques (of today, e.g. credit cards) with Monero.

My point or question rather is how you will account for the effective loss or large(r) degree of loss of the state's effective involvement in peoples' finanicla lives.

You say you are a progressive? Consent is one of the most important principles most progressives share. So if someone is acting against my consent he or she abuses my right to integrity.

Why should it be okay that a group of people is "legitimised" to act against my consent? How is that progressive? Don't you think it's criminal?

The solution will be outside the box. Not by retorting to old paradigms, old dialectic concepts.

We will need to grow our consciousness and be able to contain the whole spectrum within us.

How do you enforce something if you don't know who they are, how much they sent, or who received it?

This is made even more difficult, if not impossible, with private crypto like Monero or any privacy layers that may come to Bitcoin. Ecash already does this (although it is custodial)

You can “believe” whatever you want to “believe.” Bitcoin won’t care. Bitcoin is going to set societal constraints by pricing money appropriately. Forcing trade-offs and making us consider opportunity costs. Bitcoin is the non-negotiable.

The current band for “beliefs” that turn into actions will tighten considerably. Pragmatism will return.

For example, debates will be about adding an extra stop to local public transport system vs. allowing tax cuts for local businesses. One will happen, the other will not. And that conversation will ebb and flow from election to election.

But the days of arguing for trillions for foreign intervention (Ukraine) or trillions for UBI, healthcare, state sponsored retirement; tax breaks for churches or government sponsored gender transition surgeries…those days are gone with bitcoin enforcing opportunity costs.

Bitcoin requires trade-offs and rewards productive work (not simply activity).

Anyone can use Bitcoin/Monero or any proper crypto because they are permissionless neutral tools, but from my perspective it doesn't really make sense strategically for political ideologies that don't place top emphasis on the individual. They lie on the far end of the spectrum for ultimate individual sovereignty. It is contrary to many progressive goals or adds a lot of friction to them.

This is actually worse. After reading the history, I'd take a modern "progressive" over a late 19th century, early 20th century progressive any day, and that's saying something

Insert gif of Nicholas Cage pointing here...

"Woke" started as a description of people that see the system as a scam. Now it defines a statist.

You can hang on to old definitions, but if you're the only one holding on to it, communication will be greatly hindered.

Ask anyone in this space that knows me, or the TPB team, and they’ll tell you I go back and forth with this A LOT

Whenever I use the word Progressive, I have some people agree with me, and others looking confused or frustrated. It's easy to understand why. Progressive is a very subjective word, with multiple meanings coming from individuals and situations. Wikipedia has this definition:

"Progressivism is a philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition."

I've been reading about and participating in progressive politics for a few decades now, both in and out of politics. This is my framing and it consists of four parts.

Grassroots, People-Powered Democracy

If a decision is being made on any level of government that affects you, your voice should be heard on that issue. What we need in this country and around the world is a way for people to get directly involved in the way our government operates. Many opportunities exist now, but they are hidden behind a wall of secrecy and only the hard-core activists seem to be able to break through. We have to make the process of electoral, issue based and identity based politics transparent and open so everyone can get involved, however that works for the individual.

This applies in the economic sphere as well, because every transaction is a kind of vote helping to support the people providing the goods and services that we want. We want everyone to be able to earn, save and utilize their capital as they see fit without undo influence by corporations or algorithms. We need to make the process of trade transparent and open so that everyone can get involved, however that works for the individual.

The Concept of WE

The Earth is a single environment. Everything that affects individuals affects groups, and the larger the subject, the larger the group that is affected. I'm tired of hearing people describe the world in terms of 'us versus them'. We're all on this planet together, and the more we understand that, the better we will be able to create a world that works for everyone. How can we get a better understanding of how everyone is linked together, and that something affecting one affects us all?

Our existing fiat infrastructure has divided us into gated communities, and it's the fences and gate keepers that are the problem. We need to return to a world where transactions are under the control of people again, not prevented or required by anyone outside of our control. We need a global economy for a global civilization.

Understanding the Past

Where do our problems come from? How do they relate to each other? If we search for an understanding of our past mistakes, we gain a better understanding of how not to repeat them. Maybe we can even solve two problems with the same action. Critical Thinking requires that we have an understanding of the foundations we stand on before we start building.

We also need to have a clear understanding of how the existing foundations that our civilization is built upon have failed us, and we need to be open to making changes to those foundations so that what we build in the future won't collapse due to neglect or malicious intention.

Looking to the Future

It's not enough anymore to think and act for the moment. In the big picture, we are creating the world of the future by our actions today. I'm concerned about how my children are growing up, but I'm just as concerned about the kind of world their grandchildren will be living in. We should grant them the power to turn that world into whatever they wish it to be, with clean air and water, energy resources to explore their dreams, a peaceful world where people talk instead of fight with each other. What can we do now, either big decisions or small actions, that can help to create that world of opportunity?

nostr:note1lfkclsuqe7ga0d2ycnva7kaw8k6jg7v8fl537me8skn6g9dpgt9qyfr30a

Me knowing very well I am hoarding so much wealth on Bitcoin and you won't get any of it through coercive means for your "social programs".

No, I will fund the charities and communities as I see fit. No government can plan matters of the heart like those.

But what if these programs were less wasteful, more effective, and more democratic and transparent?

What if all wealthy people really supported caring for elderly people, but not folks with disabilities? Just…let them die?

Volunteerism alone never worked.

Consider the local level, things I can touch and see.

Forget the rest if my province. I already put money towards many charities, even whilst being coerced to do so for programs that I do not believe in.

Voluntaryism can work, and I have dedicated a part of my income just for that. Gotta practice what I preach. Many people can and do, wealthy as well, help out on common goals.

Have you tried expressing this sentiment without using a label?

Every words has attached meaning to it, including “Bitcoin.”

You can’t entirely get away from it. It’s just that this community in particular reacts a certain way. But a more mainstream audience that gets triggered by “bitcoin” then sees “progressive” and hears our conversations on nostr:npub1fpcd25q2zg09rp65fglxuhp0acws5qlphpg88un7mdcskygdvgyqfv4sld and is like hmmm, let me take another look!

That’s kind of the goal. I’ll kick it with bitcoiners but I’m also trying to appeal to my progressive/left groups and circles.

And bitcoiners can then learn a thing or two outside of their echo-chambers

You do you man. Libertarians don’t give a rip.

I listen to your podcast every now and again. While I don't agree with all of your positions, I respect your viewpoint since it helps me better understand where I stand as well. The work you do is very thoughtful and the guests you bring in give a fresh perspective for the Bitcoin space. While I am more along the "libertarian" line, I believe someone wearing the "progressive" badge can help an unreached group of people be more comfortable learning and adopting Bitcoin. Keeping doing what you're doing. Bitcoin is for everyone. Let's get as much people on a sound money standard and then we can hash out everything else with (hopefully) thoughtful and good-faith discussions.