A Porter's respectful partial disagreement with another (unrelated) Porter on the idea of Bitcoin single-issue voters.

This article is a respectful part agreement but more disagreement with Dennis Porter’s article, “Why Bitcoin Represents The Ultimate Single-Issue Voting Bloc.”

To start out, Bitcoin is apolitical.

However, many people who own Bitcoin do vote in elections, and everyone lives in countries where the government can have an effect on Bitcoin, its ecosystem and its regulation.

One definition of apolitical is “having no interest in or association with politics.”

A second definition of apolitical is “having no political relevance or importance.”

Bitcoin does not care about politics nor does it belong to any party in any country. Bitcoin is apolitical by that definition.

However, Bitcoin becomes of political relevance or importance as it becomes a government concern for regulation and oversight within or next to the current federal monetary and economic system.

As Dennis Porter notes, single-issue voting centers around a single point of passion for individuals.

Single-issue voters vote by a candidate’s stance on areas such as “gun rights, gay rights, marijuana or enviromental activities.”

Dennis proposes that single-issue voting Bitcoiners will vote for a candidate based solely on whether that candidate supports Bitcoin.

My thesis is that Bitcoiners can be a cohesive, united Bitcoin apolitical force, with some Bitcoiners falling into a single-issue voting group.

I agree that, for some people, Bitcoin alignment will override every other issue and value that a candidate stands for. Bitcoin support will be seen as the higher good that overrides the candidate’s other agenda items. (They may believe — rightly or wrongly — that Bitcoin will fix all the other candidate misalignments on issues of their concern.)

In other cases, a candidate’s Bitcoin support could work as a decider between two candidates where both candidates are equal in all other ways for that voter.

Bitcoin candidates may also bring non-voting Bitcoiners out to the election booth.

Also, as I discussed in my “Bitcoin And Biases: Fund Managers Eating Crow And Welcoming Horses In 2021” article, institutions and fund managers who support Bitcoin — will most likely support the candidates who support Bitcoin because it makes them more profit.

However, a candidate simply being a Bitcoiner may well not compel some Bitcoin voters to choose them over a rival, a Bitcoin-supporting candidate over another candidate.

Here’s why.

Some of the key issues for many Bitcoiners — self-sovereignty around individual rights, freedom and privacy — are why I do not see many Bitcoiners voting as a single-issue voting block.

For issues such as gun rights, gay rights, marijuana rights — or other areas such as pro-life or pro-choice — many and maybe even most Bitcoiners will not be single-issue voters and will not make this choice at the voting booth.

These areas are about individual rights and freedom for yourself and your friends and family members.

So let’s lay out some scenarios of different candidates.

Let’s look at some voters and their different issues:

Obviously, the last bullet of each example is an exaggeration. (Or is it a metaphor?)

All of the above Bitcoin voter issues are about self-sovereignty.

Individual rights and freedoms are issues that unite most Bitcoiners.

However, they do not unite Bitcoiners across all issues around all individual rights in the wider world.

In addition, freedom of choice within various rights does not live and breathe as a single issue that unites politicians across the political spectrum.

Would any of these voters vote for a Bitcoin candidate that is working to take away their (or those close to them) freedom and rights?

We are first individuals and next tribal, family or group-oriented. As a parent or caretaker, child or sibling, friend or colleague, we are usually motivated to protect our rights and that of our immediate families and friends first.

If we pan out to the wider world, could you see most Bitcoiners voting for a Bitcoin leader who would restrict the rights of certain groups of people? Would we vote for international leaders who confined certain people to camps, refused them bank accounts, or monitored or restricted their purchases, lifestyles, speech or ability to vote?

If we would not want to vote for that in the wider world, then why would we vote for that in the U.S.?

Instead, I see two larger, more cohesive, and even more powerful Bitcoin groups.

The “Bitcoin and the American Dream” authors and Dennis Porter are among the people spearheading the first group.

Both these groups represent a singular Bitcoin apolitical force. The second group is a subset of the first group.

First, Bitcoiners as a group educating and advocating with politicians of any political affiliation — to move toward Bitcoin.

A cohesive united Bitcoin political force can educate and guide in an apolitical manner because Bitcoin is not political.

Education is a key issue within the political realm. Most government leaders do not understand Bitcoin.

However, it is extremely important to be factual and highly accurate about Bitcoin.

Bitcoiners (and any Bitcoin advocacy group) need to work together and get oversight within the community on detailed aspects of energy usage, economics and technical implementations.

Advocating for Bitcoin is another key issue and action that all Bitcoiners can do with their government — regardless of party.

Call, email or text your elected leaders and provide them with credible information on Bitcoin.

Second, politicians who support Bitcoin could unite on the single issue of Bitcoin. Many already are. Any Bitcoin politician should be able to align on Bitcoin common ground with anyBitcoin-aligned candidate.

Note: One caveat is that just like many Bitcoiners vary on opinions and facts within the ecosystem, it is likely that many Bitcoin-aligned candidates will vary on opinions or statements about similar areas as well. Often with a lack of accuracy.

That said, Bitcoin politicians could align on Bitcoin even if they have a strong misalignment on other issues. Currently, the political sides look like this:

By its nature, bitcoin is freedom money and money for people with different views of how to transact in life. (The axiom is that Bitcoin is money for enemies. However, everyone who does not agree with your views and actions is not necessarily your enemy.)

It is possible that the underlying ethos of Bitcoin could move the political needle toward collaboration, coordination and compromise on other areas that involve the freedom to choose.

Bitcoin could be a singular entity that unites politicians across the political spectrum.

It can move politicians and other government figures to think in line with the Bitcoin values of individual rights, freedom and choice.

Similarly, uniting Bitcoiners across the political spectrum in order to educate politicians on Bitcoin is the bipartisan moonshot that many are working toward.

Regardless of how and who we vote for at the election booth, Bitcoin may underlie and fix many issues.

However, Bitcoiners have many other issues that are high priorities when they mark their ballots for the people that will reside and preside in the next government.

In these cases, many Bitcoiners are not single-issue voters.

But they are part of the larger, singular Bitcoin apolitical force.

This is a guest post by Heidi Porter. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Similar to Notcoin - Blum - Airdrops In 2024

origin »

168 +