The Cato Institute has long excelled at originating and disseminating policy ideas. As libertarians, however, we tend to be uncomfortable with the hard work of advancing those ideas through the levers and gears of the policy world, since that typically entails give-and-take compromises and partial victories at best. As Richard Rorty put it, “In democratic countries you get things done by compromising your principles in order to form alliances with groups about whom you have grave doubts.” This is not inherently appealing to anyone and is especially unattractive to many libertarians who tend to place great emphasis on following their principles to their logical conclusions. But if we want to see our ideas implemented, we need to engage not just with policy ideas but with the policy process as well. And that is how I found myself sitting in committee meetings for 72 hours over the past couple of months helping to write federal regulations.
pull down to refresh
related posts
33 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 13 Nov
That’s the old model and we utterly failed to impact it.
The new model is building permissionless parallel systems so we don’t have to care about politics.
reply
42 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner OP 13 Nov
I'm all for parallel systems, but I'm worried the politicians will always stick their nose in it, unfortunately!
reply
74 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 13 Nov
They need to be impervious to politicians, like Bitcoin and nostr
Meddling needs to be untenable
reply