pull down to refresh

I am having ambivalent thoughts about the fact the community (including Coindesk https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/08/14/pro-bitcoin-candidate-javier-milei-unexpectedly-leads-in-presidential-voting-in-argentina/) are so blinded by this man's crypto stance they completely omit his far-right conservative ideological platform. "He and his running mate, a lawyer who has defended the country’s past military dictatorship, have suggested they would loosen gun laws, reverse recent policies allowing abortion and even permit the sale of human organs, an example of commerce that Mr. Milei says the government has no business restricting." (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/14/world/americas/argentina-javier-milei-president-primary.html)
While I understand the hype of such news for crypto, I am left wondering whether this one aspect of a political candidate's entire portfolio of stances (and which, for now, remains a protest-populist promise to an impoverished nation) should be seen as a redeeming quality to a long list of ones which directly contradict the vision of a freer society. I have seen similar sentiment regarding Kennedy in the American presidential elections – the man who endorsed crypto while also making antisemitic remarks, spreading covid disinformation and conspiracy theories, and the list goes on. I do not purport to be an expert on either country and while I know this is controversial, I believe politicians should not be endorsed on the basis of a positive crypto attitude if the rest of their platform is regressive.
While the political compass is these days an outdated system of knowledge, the right has been historically associated with state control, centralization, and the suppression of human rights – all things that crypto by definition is against. How do you feel about all this?
Now it’s “hateful” to own guns? Really going for the marxist propaganda nice
reply
Interesting post, this has been on my mind as well. I'm more or less center-right and liberal (in the European sense of the word), so more on the right than left, but I share your concerns about some of the policies being put forward by people like Milei, who I think you correctly classify as far-right. I see how some of the policies supported by Milei (and others like him) go against the Bitcoin ethos.
Although I think it's positive that Bitcoin is being endorsed by popular politicians, I think it's a shame that this happens almost exclusively on the right (there are some exceptions). And, I also see how it being endorsed by far-right politicians can make people on the left despise Bitcoin, even when they know very little about it.
It's an even bigger shame when you consider the fact that Bitcoin can contribute to social justice and equality. It doesn't discriminate against anyone, and it's an inclusive system. Interesting for people on the left, you'd think. Although, a fixed monetary supply goes against Keynesianism, but that's a discussion for another day.
I disagree with the statement that the right is in favor of state control, centralization and the suppression of human rights (although historically you might be right). Even though part of the right might favor this, the right-wing parties in many western countries support (or campaign on) freedom, sovereignty and individual rights. I am European though and the right-wing here is much less socially conservative I think (almost nobody even thinks about banning abortion or loosening gun laws, for example).
These are my thoughts, I have mixed feelings about it too, but I definitely agree that we shouldn't pick a candidate solely based on their stance on Bitcoin.
reply
Bitcoin can succeed even with political support but such politicians cost lives with their hateful beliefs. Just supporting bitcoin isn’t enough for me to ignore their remaining policies.
reply