It exists in a realm in which the masses can do whatever the fuck they want to do. AS: that'll be that'll be the later this month, or November article to Bitcoin Magazine. Literally you just fucking called on that right. AS: Dude, I have 3,000 words to this article written at the moment literally. To me, I feel like, Bitcoin is post-democracy and somewhere. I think, that's the conversation that I understand why people haven't made that argument, but maybe it's time, because, I don't know. You can almost look at Bitcoin governance as an evolutionary step away from democracy.
I think, I'm intending to work on this a little bit more, because I do feel that's one of the most powerful arguments with Bitcoin, is that it is a political, that in some ways, it is anti-democratic. I think, that's a hard argument to get across.
Bitcoin is disrupted in such a way where political groups, even to the extent that they emerge, they can't actually impact, or make any decision that affects you. I think, that's the best argument that I’ve seen before, is that Bitcoin not only rejects political apparatuses, it removes your rights from being subject to the political apparatuses. PR: I think, the way that this has been phrased so far is Bitcoin is apolitical. I'm trying to think of an analogy here to Bitcoin, is that even if a bunch of people want to change the rules of the game, it's like a universal law. You then impose the rules onto everybody else. What it is, is you do that, and you argue that a majority of people wanted to change the rules of said game. The fact that – how am I going to phrase this? I want to just tie back to user rights and what you said about market in majority, is that the way a functional market works is not by changing the rules that the players of the game – If the market is a game, effectively, being able to change the rules of the game, mid-play, is not actually a functional market. This framing thing, again, is really important. Because again, it's coming from such a different perspective. therefore, you're always met with questions that seemingly have to be – you have to actually argue against the entirety of the frame of the question, as opposed to answer it itself.
0 kommentar(er)
