4 ms·

> Despite crypto’s unquestionably right-libertarian roots I had trouble reading beyond that in the second sentences. You can’t just retroactively assign a poli

> Despite crypto’s unquestionably right-libertarian roots I had trouble reading beyond that in the second sentences. You can’t just retroactively assign a political affiliation to the origin of an algorithm application.

k__ 4y ago
To me it had leftist anarcho roots, but whatever floats their boat, I guess.
- EliRivers 4y ago
  And on my desk as I type, a slim volume entitled "The politics of bitcoin : Software as right-wing extremism". To be fair, it seems to be more about some bitcoiners rather than bitcoin itself. I suspect but cannot prove that we could argue any political leanings we like.
  - k__ 4y ago
    Yes. Probably. To be honest, I don't know much about BTC. I'm coming from the Ethereum side of things. It's just tech. If people like it, it belongs to their political side. If they resent it, it belongs to a political side they also resent.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  For me it is rather hard to separate the Libetarians and Anarcho people... Other one might be right and other left, but there is some weird commonality when it comes to state and control of financial system...
  - k__ 4y ago
    Yes. I think, the main difference is that anarchism is about people can do what they want. Some interpret it as capital can do what it wants. I don't subscribe to that interpretation, but many crypto people do, sadly.
  - igorkraw 4y ago
    It's really not that hard. Libertarians, minarchists and "anarcho-capitalists" take one of the things which inherently need a state to uphold it (private property) and use it as the conceptual foundation of their social order - while not liking "the state". All other anarchists don't and hence get labeled as "left". That's the main difference, and the reason why "anarcho-capitalist" is inherently paradoxical. There is also another conversation to be had about minarchist/libertarian ideas basically wanting to remove all the good bits of the state (creating public goods, giving weaker participants of a system protection, internalising externalities via regulation etc.) but keeping the bad parts (police and military with their massive potential for rent seeking and state capturing of money pots, not to speak about violence and abuse).
    - DebtDeflation 4y ago
      > Libertarians, minarchists and "anarcho-capitalists" take one of the things which inherently need a state to uphold it (private property) and use it as the conceptual foundation of their social order - while not liking "the state". Very well said. As someone who was a "libertarian" in my high school days, I ultimately abandoned the philosophy after realizing that it was at its root far more about "property" than "liberty" and ought to have been termed "propertarianism". Furthermore, none of it's logico-moral justifications for property rights actually worked for the most fundamental forms of property (land and unproduced natural resources).
    - binibus 4y ago
      Hi, minarchist here. You are almost right in the distinction between right and left anarchism being about private property. But it's a little more profound. The main difference radicates in the conception of legitimate power. For a right anarchist, power is illegitimate only when it's carried out through violence. Meanwhile, for a left anarchist almost any power hierarchy is illegitimate in itself. To the extent that private property could give rise to power hierarchies, a left anarchist will reject it. But it's only a particular case derived from the core belief. > "anarcho-capitalist" is inherently paradoxical Well, anarcho-capitalists believe that there are ways to provide property rights outside the state. As a minarchist, I'm skeptical about it, but if you believe it there's no paradox. On the other hand, I do find deeply paradoxical the left anarchist stance on rejecting capitalism but also (AFAIK) reject any means to stop its emergence in society. > There is also another conversation to be had about minarchist/libertarian ideas basically wanting to remove all the good bits of the state [...] but keeping the bad parts As a minarchist, I strive for reducing the weight of the state as much as humanly possible. Justice, defense, and a minimal social security net are the only services I can't think how to provide without the state. If you think these are the bad parts I'd love to hear a viable alternative, maybe you can make me fully anarcho-capitalist ;).
- twic 4y ago
  Left anarchists are mostly pretty down on the concept of money full stop. Magic cypherpunk money is no different to state-backed fiat money in that respect.
simias 4y ago
I don't think it's retroactive at all, unless you believe that the message in the origin block "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" is coincidental. Beyond that Bitcoin's design decisions (deflationary currency, trustless) embed a political ideal. Algorithms can very well be political, it's absurd to argue otherwise. For example taxes are, effectively, algorithmic in nature and I don't think anybody would argue that tax brackets are apolitical.
- yu-carm-kror 4y ago
  My point is the author claims that it’s origin is such and such political affiliation “unquestionably”. Prove it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Quindecillion 4y ago
While Satoshi certainly had libertarian leanings, I don't see how anyone could possibly assign him to the "right" side of the political compass > “It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.” - Satoshi Nakamoto The impression you get from Satoshi's writing and the people he associated with (e.g. Hal Finney) is that he seemed more left-leaning if anything. There's a strong right-wing bent to the community NOW, I don't think there's any doubt of that, but to call its ROOTS "right" is unfounded
- johnny22 4y ago
  I don't know about what satoshi thought. I do however know that most of the folks talking about it in the spaces I was in were libertarian (in an american sense). They were all about gold standards and hard money and auditing the fed as well. Basically they were the Ron Paul folks.

k__ 4y ago

To me it had leftist anarcho roots, but whatever floats their boat, I guess.

EliRivers 4y ago
And on my desk as I type, a slim volume entitled "The politics of bitcoin : Software as right-wing extremism". To be fair, it seems to be more about some bitcoiners rather than bitcoin itself. I suspect but cannot prove that we could argue any political leanings we like.
- k__ 4y ago
  Yes. Probably. To be honest, I don't know much about BTC. I'm coming from the Ethereum side of things. It's just tech. If people like it, it belongs to their political side. If they resent it, it belongs to a political side they also resent.
Ekaros 4y ago
For me it is rather hard to separate the Libetarians and Anarcho people... Other one might be right and other left, but there is some weird commonality when it comes to state and control of financial system...
- k__ 4y ago
  Yes. I think, the main difference is that anarchism is about people can do what they want. Some interpret it as capital can do what it wants. I don't subscribe to that interpretation, but many crypto people do, sadly.
- igorkraw 4y ago
  It's really not that hard. Libertarians, minarchists and "anarcho-capitalists" take one of the things which inherently need a state to uphold it (private property) and use it as the conceptual foundation of their social order - while not liking "the state". All other anarchists don't and hence get labeled as "left". That's the main difference, and the reason why "anarcho-capitalist" is inherently paradoxical. There is also another conversation to be had about minarchist/libertarian ideas basically wanting to remove all the good bits of the state (creating public goods, giving weaker participants of a system protection, internalising externalities via regulation etc.) but keeping the bad parts (police and military with their massive potential for rent seeking and state capturing of money pots, not to speak about violence and abuse).
  - DebtDeflation 4y ago
    > Libertarians, minarchists and "anarcho-capitalists" take one of the things which inherently need a state to uphold it (private property) and use it as the conceptual foundation of their social order - while not liking "the state". Very well said. As someone who was a "libertarian" in my high school days, I ultimately abandoned the philosophy after realizing that it was at its root far more about "property" than "liberty" and ought to have been termed "propertarianism". Furthermore, none of it's logico-moral justifications for property rights actually worked for the most fundamental forms of property (land and unproduced natural resources).
  - binibus 4y ago
    Hi, minarchist here. You are almost right in the distinction between right and left anarchism being about private property. But it's a little more profound. The main difference radicates in the conception of legitimate power. For a right anarchist, power is illegitimate only when it's carried out through violence. Meanwhile, for a left anarchist almost any power hierarchy is illegitimate in itself. To the extent that private property could give rise to power hierarchies, a left anarchist will reject it. But it's only a particular case derived from the core belief. > "anarcho-capitalist" is inherently paradoxical Well, anarcho-capitalists believe that there are ways to provide property rights outside the state. As a minarchist, I'm skeptical about it, but if you believe it there's no paradox. On the other hand, I do find deeply paradoxical the left anarchist stance on rejecting capitalism but also (AFAIK) reject any means to stop its emergence in society. > There is also another conversation to be had about minarchist/libertarian ideas basically wanting to remove all the good bits of the state [...] but keeping the bad parts As a minarchist, I strive for reducing the weight of the state as much as humanly possible. Justice, defense, and a minimal social security net are the only services I can't think how to provide without the state. If you think these are the bad parts I'd love to hear a viable alternative, maybe you can make me fully anarcho-capitalist ;).
twic 4y ago
Left anarchists are mostly pretty down on the concept of money full stop. Magic cypherpunk money is no different to state-backed fiat money in that respect.

simias 4y ago

I don't think it's retroactive at all, unless you believe that the message in the origin block "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" is coincidental. Beyond that Bitcoin's design decisions (deflationary currency, trustless) embed a political ideal. Algorithms can very well be political, it's absurd to argue otherwise. For example taxes are, effectively, algorithmic in nature and I don't think anybody would argue that tax brackets are apolitical.

yu-carm-kror 4y ago
My point is the author claims that it’s origin is such and such political affiliation “unquestionably”. Prove it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Quindecillion 4y ago

While Satoshi certainly had libertarian leanings, I don't see how anyone could possibly assign him to the "right" side of the political compass > “It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.” - Satoshi Nakamoto The impression you get from Satoshi's writing and the people he associated with (e.g. Hal Finney) is that he seemed more left-leaning if anything. There's a strong right-wing bent to the community NOW, I don't think there's any doubt of that, but to call its ROOTS "right" is unfounded

johnny22 4y ago
I don't know about what satoshi thought. I do however know that most of the folks talking about it in the spaces I was in were libertarian (in an american sense). They were all about gold standards and hard money and auditing the fed as well. Basically they were the Ron Paul folks.