Why Libertarians Should Prioritize Bitcoin Strategy Over All Others

[ad_1]

Libertarians should prioritize the Bitcoin strategy over any other.

Libertarians generally believe in the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), which means that it is wrong to initiate an assault against someone else’s person or against rightfully acquired private property. What does Bitcoin have to do with the principle of non-aggression? The main violator of the NAP principle is the state. And the main reason the state is so big and powerful is because it has access to cheap debt. Bitcoin corrects this.

Let’s explore:

Why the state is so big

If you’ve been forced into some form of lockdown, restriction, travel ban, mask wearing, jab compliance in the past two years of Hysteria-19, it’s obvious that states around the world have become extremely powerful.

As Robert Higgs pointed out in his classic “Crisis And Leviathan”, the state expands considerably during crises, but it does not necessarily “return all freedoms” after crises. We saw this ratchet effect in particular with September 11 and the Patriot Act, which forever changed travel and various other freedoms that we had.

But of what use is the desire of a State to extend its powers and its scope, without the financing of such an enterprise? In a more honest system, the state and its politicians would have to explicitly tax the population, which is not so popular. The modern day fractional reserve system allows for cheap debt financing of bureaucracy and government enforcement of the “papers please” mentality.

What do you think would happen if Bitcoin’s “increase in numbers technology” continued to work and fiat currency continued to devalue? Government bureaucrats and thugs would experience a reduction in their purchasing power, and this would effectively act as “proper sizing” of government.

Not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists

Good, but even still, it’s mostly true to say that you want a smaller state than what we have today. Starving the beast is the only way to impose some responsibility here. Governments and complicit media have become too big, too powerful, too influential, and they have weakened and frightened people over time.

Even if you don’t believe Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is the Way, most libertarians would be happier if the state were smaller. So why not push for the adoption of technology that will do just that?

Current libertarian strategies have not been successful

Trying to win at the polls has not been a successful strategy for most libertarians around the world. The people simply do not understand the problems of socialism and statism, and they will gladly vote for more government-sponsored redistribution if the cost artificially appears to be low enough.

How many times have you really seen libertarian orientations being pursued politically and winning as a political strategy? Other than Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 US presidential campaigns, I barely saw him. And, to be fair, these campaigns were not a political victory, they were rather a victory in supporting and engaging new ranks of libertarians in the movement.

Even if we could somehow convince the world or the US government to adopt a gold standard, there is nothing really stopping them from claiming “this is an emergency” and that we have to give up on the gold standard. -or and “temporarily” close the gold window. In this way, Bitcoin provides stronger assurances on our money than gold ever could.

When you run a Bitcoin node, it checks all the rules in the system and is a more decentralized form of rule validation and enforcement. We are less dependent on the government and the big banks or the big gold vaults to defend the integrity of the system. Think of it like: Bitcoin is less corruptible than fiat money or the gold standard.

Well what is the alternative?

Titus Gebel presented the idea of ​​free private cities on my show (“SLP161”). Imagine an opt-in city where you pay a subscription fee up front with the rules set in advance as well. The “state” or utilities in this case would be much smaller than the current governments of the world, and there would be more competitive pressure between Bitcoin citadels or free private towns to ensure that locals get a good deal.

Alternatively, there are efforts in the direction of rooting. Others like agorism type strategies, and in this case Bitcoin can obviously play a role in being able to support the private entrepreneur.

There might even be something to the idea of ​​advocating for Bitcoin and libertarian politics. But that doesn’t work without Bitcoin as a big part of the mix.

Without the monetization of Bitcoin at a sustained rate, politicians and political parties will have little incentive to support pro-freedom policies. But in a world where Bitcoin is growing rapidly and employment opportunities are present in the industry, politicians like Texas Governor Greg Abbott will support the idea that Texas should be a competitive state for Bitcoin.

How can we do this?

Stack sats and build alternatives to statism. This means that you have to set up your automated automatic stacking plan, whether with Swan Bitcoin or with anyone else.

Or, if automated sats stacking isn’t your thing, you can earn bitcoin by selling your goods and services for sats, or you can mine them as well. Buying non-KYC coins is another way to do it as well, whether it’s meeting people at Bitcoin events, dating, conferences or using platforms like Bisq or Hodl Hodl.

The goal is to enact a steady and constant accumulation of bitcoin, and HODL as much as possible to restrict the supply. In doing so, you speed up the process of hyperbitcoinization: the monetization of Bitcoin, non-state and free market money.

When you don’t like the current options, you need to build something that makes it better. This is what Satoshi did. Bitcoiners are following this lead, and if you’re a libertarian, so should you.

This is a guest post from Stephan Livera. The opinions expressed are entirely theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

[ad_2]