Bitcoin Won’t Let You Transcend Politics

We can’t transcend politics ‘because we have bitcoin now, bro’. Sometimes I see this kind of t-shirt or sentiment being shared online, but it’s simply misguided.

Just to prove I’m not strawmanning, here’s another similar example:

If you just mean “I’m not interested in politics” or you don’t like one particular party’s politics, that’s one thing, but it’s still not sufficient to secure your own liberty. As the saying goes, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.

Zooming out a little bit here

Even if we abstract away from the upcoming US presidential election, politics more broadly is about making decisions in groups, and a reflection of power relations among individuals. We are determining who gets to control which scarce and rivalrous resources, ideally in a way that enables people to live together while reducing conflict. In a sense, Bitcoin does help reduce conflict over ownership of money, using cryptography.

But remember reality here

Now yes, we can talk about liberty, anarcho-capitalism and crypto-anarchy at a philosophical level. But the state exists today. So given this reality, if you want to secure your own political rights, it still matters to engage in some way. That could mean campaigning and contributing to bitcoin, economics and liberty focused education, it could be writing a submission to voice your opinion or lobby for a pro-bitcoin policy, it could mean being a part of a particular party, it could even mean contributing to secessionist movements and causes.

But entirely ceding the political turf to your enemies is a bad decision. In some cases, it is that the politicians are genuinely uninformed on Bitcoin, and they ‘follow it’ by seeing news headlines. In these genuinely uninformed cases, having educated Bitcoiners speaking to them, and helping them not make major mistakes will be helpful. It can reduce the risk of bad regulations or laws on bitcoin self custody, transfer, mining, node running etc. This can reduce the risk of bitcoiners being criminalised, reduce regime uncertainty, lower tax burdens or otherwise.

In other cases, there are politicians with an axe to grind about Bitcoin or Crypto, such as Elizabeth Warren with her “Anti Crypto Army”. In these cases, perhaps a more combative approach has to be taken where the community supports a pro-Bitcoin candidate instead of the anti-Bitcoin politician.

But what about cypherpunks writing code and existing in crypto-anarchy?

The late Hal Finney, Bitcoin legend and cryptography pioneer, was also libertarian and even he posted the following to a mailing list discussion (shout out to Aaron van Wirdum for surfacing this in The Genesis Book):

“I am not in cyberspace now; I am in California. I am governed by the laws of California and the United States even though I am communicating with another person, whether by postal mail or electronic mail, by telephone or TCP/IP connection. What does it mean to speak of a government in cyberspace? It is the government in physical space I fear. Its agents carry physical guns which shoot real bullets. Until I am able to live in my computer and eat electrons, I don’t see the relevance of cyberspace.”

It’s not that he was philosophically opposed to liberty or crypto-anarchy, it’s that he saw the real world limitations for what they were and are.

But wouldn’t it be nice if everyone got along? Kumbaya

Yes there is the idealistic sense in which “Wouldn’t it be nice” or “what if we all just respected each other’s rights and ignored the state” – but the reality is that “people won’t all just”. They see a system that enables them to steal from other people or to control other people, and they will take advantage of it. This can manifest in very simple ways where politicians promise “free things” or to protect you from the boogeyman in exchange for power. Given that many voters in democracies are not net-payers into the system, of course they will not think about the long term. They will not think about the risk taken, or the effort to accumulate capital and build a business. For these selfish voters, they will just take whatever they can get here and now, and not think about the future.

Doesn’t Bitcoin Fix This?

Won’t Bitcoin fix some of these things though? Yes, it is true that the state uses cheap fiat credit and control over the money to expand itself. Yes it is true that the state undermines competing forms of private governance, such as the family, the community, even religion and private charity – in order to install itself as the more powerful government mechanism on which people depend.

As part of this process, more things are politicized, and this has taken place in most of our own lifetimes. There used to be unwritten rules about not talking politics while on a date, or in a polite social setting. That sense of decorum is now gone, and nowadays we all endure lectures about the latest ‘Current Thing’ even at non-political events.

Even in the hyperbitcoinized world, there will still be family politics about things like family business, or inheritance battles or divorce battles. Or if we have monarchies and free private city governance, there could still be politics involved. The benefit might just be that it’s easier to opt out of it, and everyday people aren’t forced to participate. So yes longer term, Bitcoin will reduce but not eliminate politics. But don’t confuse this world now, for that world later on.

If you think so much can be achieved politically, why have Bitcoin or code at all?

There’s a division of labor here. Bitcoin and writing code is absolutely essential. But my point is more that those people good at party politics should focus on that, and those people good at writing and reviewing code should focus on that.

Making the political system less hostile helps those people writing code, and it helps everyday HODLers who are holding their keys and running their node. After all, if Bitcoin and Bitcoin app code is improved, that could make it technically easier for people to use Bitcoin. In a broader political sense, writing code is reducing conflict by further reducing the cost of protecting money. It helps more people HODL and use their coins how they wish.

Summing it all up

Yes it would be nice if less people used the state to steal from each other, or control each other, but the pathway to get there does not mean you should just kneel down and take beatings from the other side. Yes it would be nice if we didn’t have to pay attention to these things, but that’s wishful thinking. Even if you personally don’t have the proverbial ‘stomach’ to wade into the swamp of political activism in favor of Bitcoin, the very least you can do is not poo-poo the efforts of those who do have the stomach for it. Likewise, the people who can do party politics or political activism should not poo-poo the efforts of those writing and reviewing code to improve Bitcoin.

Bottom line, don’t confuse the society you want, with the method of getting there. 

This is a guest post by Stephan Livera. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.