Read on Twitter
Criticizing Andreas for championing a shitcoin is one thing, especially with his unsatisfactory response to #SupplyGate.
But disowning him for not boosting the increasingly puritanical Bitcoiner orthodoxy about the Good Life (beyond respecting negative rights) is just bigoted.
But disowning him for not boosting the increasingly puritanical Bitcoiner orthodoxy about the Good Life (beyond respecting negative rights) is just bigoted.
There is a consistent political philosophy underlying Bitcoin centered on individual rights and liberty, but not a broader moral/aesthetic philosophy. Within the parameters of nonaggression, each individual is free to pursue the life of their choosing.
In spite of this, the Bitcoin twitter I know and love has seemed to develop (perhaps it always had it?) an entirely independent set of moral/aesthetic value judgments to accompany the political ones.
Eat the steak.
Raise a family.
Do your deadlifts.
Lower your time preference.
No kings or hardforks. Only God.
These precepts don& #39;t flow from what Bitcoin is, the way certain others do (such as "Don& #39;t trust, verify" or "not your keys, not your coins"). They are coincidental.
Raise a family.
Do your deadlifts.
Lower your time preference.
No kings or hardforks. Only God.
These precepts don& #39;t flow from what Bitcoin is, the way certain others do (such as "Don& #39;t trust, verify" or "not your keys, not your coins"). They are coincidental.
That isn& #39;t to say they are wrong or unjustified. There could be plenty of underlying reasons for them, ranging from faith to rational analysis. I subscribe to many, myself.
But since they aren& #39;t uniquely Bitcoin, when BT smugly preaches these things, it& #39;s off-putting to anyone who doesn& #39;t share them but does share the broader political aims.
I can practically hear the future warnings to would be citadel immigrants, "In this Citadel, we believe in monogamist, nuclear families and regular church attendance."
If you want to exclude all the people you find "icky" from your citadel, do your thing. Free association and all that.
I& #39;d just personally rather live in a more tolerant, big-tent Bitcoiner citadels that value diversity in expressed life will be freer in the long run.
I& #39;d just personally rather live in a more tolerant, big-tent Bitcoiner citadels that value diversity in expressed life will be freer in the long run.
https://twitter.com/Y_deGaia/status/1293443239559811072?s=19
This">https://twitter.com/Y_deGaia/... thread articulates clearly just the sort of line of thinking that I am trying to respond to.
Within the constraints of the NAP, how do we, as individuals and cultures, respond to behavior that doesn& #39;t harm others but feels viscerally uncomfortable?
This">https://twitter.com/Y_deGaia/... thread articulates clearly just the sort of line of thinking that I am trying to respond to.
Within the constraints of the NAP, how do we, as individuals and cultures, respond to behavior that doesn& #39;t harm others but feels viscerally uncomfortable?
Citadels could promote tolerance, recognizing that the whole need for humility in legislating morality is rooted in the fact that human desire is subjective.
Or they could take a gamble that the social precepts the citadel is founded upon are objective, and trust that filtering the population to only be those who accept them will result in a more prosperous society.
