I was reflecting on Arnold Kling's description of the three main political tribes (Progressives, Conservatives, Libertarians) and how Bitcoin serves each of them. I'm going to give each group a charitable hearing, which means I'm talking about the good faith actors in each of these tribes. I have no illusions about there being bad faith power seeking sociopaths in each group.
Full disclosure: I have not read Kling's book The Three Languages of Politics, so this is only based on listening to him discuss these ideas with Russ Roberts on Econ Talk and perhaps hearing it come up in other conversations.
Libertarians
In Kling's taxonomy, Libertarians frame issues around a liberty vs coercion distinction (can confirm). It's pretty easy to see the appeal of bitcoin to this group (and not just because it's the group I'm in).
The state and other criminals can't take your bitcoin from you without your consent and they can't stop you from transacting with it.
There's another element of bitcoin that appeals to Libertarians greatly. Using Bitcoin directly undermines the coercive state, reducing it's capacity to coerce innocent people.
Progressives
Kling describes Progressives as framing things as oppressor vs oppressed. At first blush this sounds similar to Libertarians, but Progressives don't see violations of property rights as the dividing line. Progressives are concerned about the plight of the "little guy" and not only in cases of outright coercion.
What likely appeals to Progressives is that Bitcoin is open to all. Disenfranchised people, who may be blocked out of formal financial institutions, have just as much access to Bitcoin as everyone else.
That Bitcoin also allows ordinary people to preserve their savings without relying on and enriching corrupt bankers should be quite appealing.
Conservatives
The Conservative framing is civilization vs barbarism, according to Kling. There's a lot to unpack there and I'm not going try to be comprehensive about it. One way to think about this distinction is that a civilization has formal institutional structures for dealing with disputes that are rooted in their societies traditions, rather than resorting to unseemly ad hoc solutions (again, there's a lot to unpack here).
I found conservatives the most difficult to think about. Those of you who are familiar with The Righteous Mind will likely be able to guess why.
Where I think the main appeal is for conservatives is that the state, in general, and fiat, in particular, undermine many of the traditional institutions of society. Bitcoin undermines their ability to undermine the organic institutions of civil society. There's a whole treatise to be written on this topic, but suffice to say conservatives believe that the state undermines and crowds out churches, fraternal societies, charities, the family, and cultural tradition, while the high time preference induced by fiat leads to all manner of antisocial behaviors like drug abuse, casual sex, and gambling.
Wrapping up
Let me know what you think about this. Did I miss something obvious? Did I mischaracterize anything/anyone?
Only hold as much fiat as you're willing to lose.
originally posted at