We could use the terms conservative and progressive, but then someone's head might explode when Bitcoin gets called a progressive attack on conservative institutions.
Bitcoin certainly is an attack on institutions, but not progressive in character. All the institutions it (claims to) bypass like regulators, the state, central banks, the tax system and so on, with the exception of borders maybe are quite liberal in the broad sense of the term.
Financial regulations are profusely conservative. They're all about stability and preserving existing power structures. And mass financial surveillance, not least surveillance of dissidents and anti-establishment movements.
In principle Bitcoin unlocks some of the chains. The government pressured payment processors to stop processing donations to WikiLeaks, so they used Bitcoin.
And it's no more an attack on taxes or the state than cash ever was.
my head isn't exploding, this is just a one-dimensional understanding of what conservatism and progressivism are. Institutions aren't conservative just because they're stable or preserve existing power structures. Progressives can be in power and conservatives can be out of power.
When it comes to crypto in the US this is is largely the case. It's politically clearly a tool of a self-perceived dissident (libertarian) right that attempts to 'exit' from what they see as progressive establishment institutions.
> this is just a one-dimensional understanding of what conservatism and progressivism are.
I think @AnthonyMouse trying to create a label for that axis (necessarily one dimensional), so that’s not really a strong argument against what he’s saying.
I think it’s a bad choice of label because — even if I get people to accept that the terms associated with parties are not descriptions of those parties[0] — the opposite of conservative is “dynamic” and the opposite of liberal is “authoritarian”.
[0] and indeed the actual party names: the party opposite of “Republican” may be “Democrat” in the USA, yet in Northern Ireland there is no single party with that name and the block opposite the group collectively described as “republican” is the block collectively called “loyalist”, while the historical opposite of “republican” is (IMO) “monarchist”.
Banking regulations are conservative regardless of which party controls the government.
The banking regulations proposed by Democrats are actually more conservative than the ones proposed by Republicans, because it's the libertarian wing of the Republican party which is in favor of liberalizing banking regulations. But even when Republicans are in power, that doesn't mean libertarians are, so that generally doesn't happen.
Or we get awful "compromise" garbage where no challenge to existing banking institutions is permitted but the incumbents get more latitude to abuse the public in new and creative ways.
