Bitcoin Forum

What is your political/ideological affiliation, and how do you feel it has affected your involvement with Bitcoin?

For the time being (and over the last few years) I've answered this question as :

Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative

Seeing how most people can't tell the difference between libs and cons generationally for the last 200 years though.... I figure everyone is going to read that how they want to no matter how its stated.

So the dumbed down version...

"Get off my property and don't tell me what I can and can't do with that which is mine."

Property in this case being monetary in nature, and the social aspect of that position I suppose would be the openeness that is the bitcoin community.

So you are basically an Americanized classical liberal? Or that is at least how it sounds :P

i am an unreconstructed, Jeffersonian, Constitutional anarchist.

chew on that...

Other, I guess.

I am largely a libertarian, but my reasons are as much pragmatic as they are ideological. I do think there are legitimate and beneficial functions of government, but I remain open to non-governmental alternatives, and am interested in anarchic societies. I am "culturally liberal" for the most part, inasmuch as subcultures tend to correlate with politics. I don't think there is a single right way to do things, and I dislike dogmatists of all kinds.

I'm a fan of parallel, competing currencies, and I think Bitcoin is a fascinating experiment that I'm happy to participate in. And making a profit isn't too bad either.

Political Nihilist (not above)

I advocate the destruction of the old and stagnant and the construction of new political systems.

AKA. anarchist?

I've come to believe statism is just slavery. I've always believed in freedom in many aspects and as I've progressed it's become clearer, the status quo must go.

I voted for anarcho-capitalism, though I think terms like voluntaryism are nicer sounding to outsiders. A bit like how progressivism isn't progressive but people think it must be because of the name. People are that stupid. The difference is that voluntaryism is actually about the name; it's about voluntary action between individuals.

Anarchist. Plain old anarchist.

Without adjectives?

I picked apolitical because anarcho-capitolism sounds a lot like fascism, which is exactly what anarchy (classic) is.  Philisophyical anarchy (as I've comed to call it.  Or, the idea that normal people can look after each other and mind the normal necessities of living with respect to one another.  But it involved an evolution of humanity or integration of technological upgrading of human intelligence to interface with global truths and accurate information to a democratic society to be realized (becuase that's really what it is, location based democracy)

Is that you, Fascist Utopia?

OT: I voted "anarcho-capitalist", but I don't really like the term, and I have no ideological attachment to capitalism; just a personal preference which I would expect to be able to entertain in a stateless society.

Fascism is anarchism now?

Have I been informed wrongly on something?

If I'm right about who that is, then "Fascist Utopia" is a deliberately ironic nickname. If not, then... I'm just wrong about who that is.

please add "apolitic".

I'm socialist. Which, btw, is different from communist. I mean, every 1st world country is socialist up to some degree: they have universal health care (except for the US), police, firemen, public schools etc.

Thats not the definition of socialist. I think you mean you are a social-democrat.

use common sense.
if its fail, use brain.
and rely on heart, if its fail too.
so, destruction for destruction itself. purposeless/goalless/endless destruction manifestation is leitmotiv ?

Well, there was no Social-democrat option here, and socialist inside a democracy is the same than social-democrat.

American liberal is social-democrat.

Not everybody here is north -merican, I'm european. How am I supposed to know that?

from own history.
A Hitler for example, was felow social-democrat, marxist, German red army member[#007. how ironic Fleming was] and mason. and very enjoyed "education" after US tour/visit result, fanatically enthusiastic about US-based-colleagues imposed/proposed/suggested social transformations.
other history figures fate was indicative[enough]/educative, too.
just pick a [random]history book from [library]shelves and enjoy [careful]reading.

You know now. ;)

PS: From a fellow ex-social-democrat, now turned libertarian. Social-democracies are evil, they hurt the poor.

The only thing I'd add is it also refers to factors of production controlled by the state (AKA. public sector).

Part of the means of production should be owned by the community, and the rest should be regulated by the community.


Actual social-democracies are a farce, because, for example, there are politicians between your ideas and the making of laws.

So this can't be done without guns?

Yes, that's what happens when you delegate the right to make decisions about your life to someone else. That someone else makes those decisions (unsurprisingly) in a manner that benefits them, as opposed to a manner that benefits you.

As for me, I am 100% Agorist. This is AnCap, put to use now.

I like the idea that a Government and a State exists so it enforces the law to everyone. For me the definition of State is monopoly of violence.



I support the Internet Party in Spain (PDI = Partido de Internet), which advocates for liquid democracy. Meaning that you can vote directly every law, or become a representative, or change your representative, at any given time.

In Spain we have  government-issued electronic National ID Cards (called here DNIe) we can use to id ourselves in the Agora Ciudadana software project (the software is still being written).

Liquid democracy inherently exists. It's called voluntary trade. You pay for what it is relevant to you, whether it be the happiness of others or the food you eat. I'm sorry it doesn't allow you to enslave your neighbors so you can get your homeless friend Joe five star public housing.

A liquid democracy may just be the only one that works... of course it is still rule of the strong oppressing the weak.


I can only assume that was in response to my being Agorist. I can further only assume that you have no idea what Agorism (http://www.agorism.info) is.

I have yet to see a system perpetuated by force working sustainably.

Somewhere between an Agorist/Ancap, but I have pretty unique views on most things, so it's hard to pinpoint.

Well, neither have I, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible.

It doesnt matter. If you create a system that is managed completely by assemblies it would be even worse in a lot of senses. Assemblies are slow, suffer heavily from imperfect inforamtion, dont have a price system and worse of all heavily promote political darwinism.

Having a system run by assemblies is basically imposible and would drive any nation into extreme poverty. Its poverty exploitation.

In my experience, every system of government is just a way to drive a geographical region into poverty, it's just a matter of how long it takes.

nice to see there are a fair amount of classical anarchists (libertarian socialists) and socialists here. (Spare me the handwringing about the gulag and the politburo please, as you conveniently missed the libertarian part of libertarian socialism). I guess I'm a communist on the small scale, but for the purposes of larger scale interactions and sociopolitical systems I'm somewhere around the mutualism camp. I believe that the individualist/collectivist cleavage that has always been around in anarchist thought is not insurmountable, but I do believe far far too many "libertarians" or "anarcho-capitalists" don't do near enough critiquing of the status quo outside of the violence that the tax man uses to steal their buckets, I mean duckets. I am much more interested about building new structures within the cracks of the old and exploring mutual aid/non-hierarchical/consent in the context of building new organizations and communities and spaces where people have the ability to explore what the actually want their world to look like.

Not even close to true. Maybe it seems that way because your interactions with individualist libertarians are quite low, but I can attest to the fact that libertarians are heavily involved in questioning the status quo on just about everything. A great example would be the movement within libertarianism that deals heavily in parenting and education techniques.

The big evils get the big attention. Also, most libertarians figure that when you knock down the big problem (Tax) the smaller ones will either fall with, or fall much easier.

That said, Yes, do go check out the Unschooling movement, and as for building new systems within the cracks of the old, check out Agorism.

To anyone that calls themselves a communist or socialist: Did the Soviet Union prove anything?

I voted an-cap, because I think that is what a anarchy founded on the NAP will end up being.

Any political theory person will tell you those were not communist, nor were they socialist.

compare EU and USSR.
both are socialistic, but who succeed ?
and thats a point: implementation is matter, ideas don't.

They weren't socialist.

they are. from years before Marx born to present days.
UK for example, still called "most socialistic country after Soviet Union", probably forgeting China or they really more, nvm.
note: European "revolutions" happen AGES before Russian one.

Sorry for not making this clear-- the USSR wasn't socialist.

sure, they are.
as well as Kambodia/DPRK/China&etc and US. just different branches. Stalinism and Trotskism, respectively.

Socialists need not be marxist in their analysis or politics.

And let me be clear-- Stalinists aren't what Marx had in mind. You only need a few things by him to realize that.

Also, to call the US socialist is hilarious. Tell me more funny and false things.

socialist need to be told what they need and what not. they just exist, with you consent/approval or without. as most other things does.
sure, its hilarious. and false. sure, it may hurt. someone feelings/beleifs. for anyone uneducated, to understand what meant and/or look at situation/country more objective/critically.
US is plain and CLEAR manifestation of both Marxism and Trotskism. did you ever read "Manifesto", even once ? did you even read Trotsky strategy/management proposals ?
its CLEARLY implemented in US for 90% percent, both.

Here, I think you're right. the US is a very socialized country, but not socialist. If it fits any -ism, it's Fascism.

Authoritarian? Check.
Nationalistic? Check.
Socially Darwinist? Hmm. Not so much. Check back in ten years, though.
Socially interventionist? Check.
Militaristic? Check.
Corporatistic? Check. (I know that's not precisely the word but you all know what I mean, Government and Corporations working hand-in-hand.)

5 out of 6, and the only point where it fails is the massive social programs the US offers for the 'lower classes' instead of the eugenics and euthanasia of WWII-era Italy and Germany. As I said, though, give it time, once that social health care starts racking up the costs of old age and poor diet, see if some Social Darwinism doesn't start popping up in national policy.

All these conditions that you've laid forth are necessary conditions, but not all-in-all sufficient for a fascist state-- there's something missing, because most governments/nations would be considered these, but we acknowledge very few states as fascist states.

The US isn't a fascist state, not yet. I think the second we single out an "other" that is irreducible, and we don't extend proper citizenship to is the second we become a fascist state-- irrational persecution of "other"(s) is probably what sets us apart from fascism.

you can call it whatever you want, like "[social-]democratic fascist states", or "peaceful and prosperous land of Oceania", but thats not matter.
and not change fact that's US is only one Evil empire, survived XX age and not destroyed, yet.

I'll just leave this here:
https://moviereviewh2one2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/abu-ghraib-tm.jpg

+1

whats a pic ?
picnic in Guantanamo bay ?


thats why so many dances about "Fascism" definition.
acccording to some, its common euphemerism to to social-wide crimes against humanity.
against to rest[including Hitler himself], Fascism is branch is national-socialism. under exactly same red flag and under fame "Manifesto" of Marx and Feder.
who is right isn't matter. matter is lesson, learnt from WWII.
if someone had any, in which im doubt more and more, reading.

We've killed a lot of brown people, but we've also killed a lot of asians and blacks-- I don't think that our irreducible other is non-whites(we're not genociding them to any great extent).

No, It's "Terrorists", and the best part is, you can be branded one so very, very easily.

Terrorism is a political ideology-- you can't genocide ideology.

Someone should tell that to the government, then, 'cause they sure as hell are trying.

I'm a moderate classical liberal.

I have sympathies with libertarianism and objectivism, but I wouldn't say I have some of the more extreme viewpoints to push me to become an anarcho-capitalist. I do like the core tenets of voluntarism, and try to live that way myself.

I have an innate distrust of government and multinational corporations alike, and tend to trust only those which have demonstrably shown to be worthy of my trust. I believe the free market is a bit like Linux, it's great as long as you're intelligent enough to use all of its mechanisms (including charity and boycott) and not rely on government regulation, but most people have been brainwashed into thinking the answer is always more government, and it is this brainwashing which we need to undo.

I think the government mostly responds to the people.

If the people say kill and harass people browner than you....

...well it'd be sorta hard to argue with that now wouldn't it?

My answer:
Society should be completely decentralized. No government. No money. No forced labor. No licenses or registrations. What will hold it together is peer-to-peer networks and similar organizations in person and through other technology. A big change would have to happen in how people think society should be organized, so they don't just try to form more hierarchies. Somebody has to protect the nukes, right? No, get rid of them.

Yes, no, yes, yes.

Money is kinda required, because it's really hard to figure the change back from a Chicken.

Just take the chicken, and later let someone take something they want. That sounds strange and improbable now because it rarely happens, but if it happened all the time then it would continue happening.

But more importantly, because wearable mind reading technology is being sold retail now (which only reads simple thoughts like directions and emotions, Emotiv Epoc for example), and that will continue advancing, a network of people who communicate through their thoughts can organize themselves better than a number can. Money is just a number.

You're really advocating a return to barter?

There's a reason a medium of exchange was created.

It may be possible to get rid of money if technology advances far enough, but I doubt it. Mises and the problems of economic calculation have convinced me.

I picked "classical liberal" assuming that you meant a Jeffersonian believer in limited government (which is not the same thing as no government) and broad support for civil and human rights.  In other words, I don't really have a political home in America these days. <wry grin>

I was interested in Bitcoin as an experiment in non-centrally-controlled digital currency that allows secure, private transactions between individuals across the Internet, just as physical money does between individuals who meet in the physical world.  The current online payment solutions are unsatisfactory, especially to somebody who is considering running a small online business.  Most of them charge too much and provide too little security.  So I guess Bitcoin hasn't affected my politics at all, but it's early days yet. :-)

The price system is one of the most important features of an economy, and without it the economy ceases to exist. Soviet Russia didn't have a price system, and they basically just borrowed prices from neighboring capitalist conuntries, and that still didn't keep them from wasting tons of resources and not being able to deliver others. Money and prices are an information exchange, you simply can't get rid of them.

Star Trek was fictitious.

So was From the Earth to the Moon.

Yay! I'm on the winning team :)

ZombieRothbard, what a great name!   :D

Yeah, I picked "Anarcho-Capitalist", although honestly Rothbard himself coined that term with tounge-in-cheek, since a free-market voluntary society based on peer-to-peer legal structures with private courts and police isn't really what is historically understood to be "Capitalist" nor "Anarchist".