anarcho-communism,

voluntary democracy,

non hierarchichal direct democracy,

these are all inherently unexistable:

in democracy there is always a minority being overpowered by the rest -> that is involuntary and hierarchical

if there is no minority overpowered, it is not democracy. it then is everybody ruling only over themselfes.

what he is advocating for is the same as advocating for "dry liquid".

this 'philospher' can bend his words however he likes, he won't manifest unicorns. ever.

the funny thing is though: violence-free-market capitalism is the actual solution that is going to bring you the results that you guys are hoping for with 'anarcho communism'.

long term, through deflation, there will be enough for everybody. and in abundance, most humans share automatically. also humans grow strong communities by nature if they don't get divide and conquered.

however this reality is impossible without prices on goods and services. just as relationships are impossible without communicating needs/boundaries. they are truth finding and value creation mechanisms.

if you don't want to put prices on your property, sure go ahead, as long as you don't coerce anyone into the same. if you don't want your community to use money, go ahead but be consequent about it. your community won't even be able to produce a pencil. congratulations.

You're making the same mistake that Yuval Noah Harari made in his book Sapiens... the belief that capitalism REQUIRES you to make every single decision in your life based on monetary profit motives.

This is obviously incorrect.

Do I need to charge my kids money before feeding them dinner in order to be in adherence with capitalism? Obviously not. Does capitalism allow me to be charitable with my neighbor? Obviously yes. Can I decide to buy something local even though it costs more than a similar item on Amazon or Walmart? Yes I can, and that doesn't mean I am violating capitalism.

Capitalism IS free/voluntary exchange and engagement.

People can voluntarily join a commune under capitalism!!

What makes it "communism" — the way 99.9% of human use the word — is when there's a centralized government pointing guns at people's heads, forcing them to behave in certain ways.

Your post describes people voluntarily engaging with one another. You are describing free markets / free exchange / capitalism.

Additionally, these are nothing more than meaningless feel-good nonsense:

> "in favor of a decentralized, stateless society where resources and goods are communally owned and managed."

> "manage their own affairs, making decisions through direct democracy and consensus."

> "exchanging goods and services based on need rather than profit"

> "work together for the common good"

> "operate on principles of mutual aid and shared resources"

These all mean NOTHING until applied to a specific situation. And then anyone with the tiniest bit of mental maturity would understand that SOMEONE is going to decided what different people's "needs" are... SOMEONE is going to decide what "consensus" means... SOMEONE is going to decide what "the common good means" etc etc

So, yes, communism IS coercion... and nothing you said in this incoherent post above demonstrates otherwise.

GUILTY PLEASURE LIST

I spoke at a big bitcoin-adjacent company this week and one of the best questions was from someone who asked what the downsides of bitcoin adoption might be.

I always do appreciate these steelman questions, the skeptical questions, the ones where we challenge ourselves. Only when we can answer those types of questions do we understand the concept that we are promoting.

So the classic example is that in modern economic literature, "deflation is bad". This, however, is only the case in a highly indebted system. Normally, deflation is good. Money appreciates, technology improves, and goods and services get cheaper over time as they should. Price of Tomorrow covers this well. My book touches on this too, etc. The "deflation is bad" meme is still alive in modern economic discourse and thus is worth countering, but I think in the bitcoin spectrum of communities, people get that deflation is fine and good.

My answer to the question was in two parts.

The first part was technological determinism. In other words, if we were to re-run humanity multiple times, there are certain rare accidents that might not replicate, and other commonalities that probably would. Much like steam engines, internal combustion engines, electricity, and nuclear power, I think a decentralized network of money is something we would eventually come across. In our case, Bitcoin came into existence as soon as the bandwidth and encryption tech allowed it to. In other universes or simulations it might look a bit different (e.g. might not be 21 million or ten minute block times exactly), but I think decentralized real-time settlement would become apparent as readily as electricity does, for any civilization that reaches this point. So ethics aside, it just is what it is. It exists, and thus we must deal with it.

The second part was that in my view, transparency and individual empowerment is rarely a bad thing. Half of the world is autocratic. And half of the world (not quite the same half) deals with massive structural inflation. A decentralized spreadsheet that allows individuals to store and send value can't possibly be a bad thing, unless humanity itself is totally corrupted. I then went into more detail with examples about historical war financing, and all sorts of tangible stuff. In other words, a whole chapter full of stuff. I've addressed this in some articles to.

In your view, if you had to steelman the argument as best as you could, what are the scenarios where bitcoin is *BAD* for humanity rather than good for it, on net?