Sure, absolutely agree. Why not both worlds though? Even Saylor is thinking about this I think. He said in another podcast, "there will be two types of people, the ones that own Bitcoin and the ones that will get some Bitcoin from cleverly constructed redistribution nation-state systems." Now, he didn't say UBI, but I wouldn't be surprised if he actually thinks its the way to go.
Saylor is pretty libertarian and sharp as an arrow as you know, and he has proved to be the master at getting out of the box.
Because I absolutely agree with you, that's my kind of world, a voluntaryist world where all relationships are voluntary. The question really is, do you think people are culturally heading in that direction? I think people are so dependent on government (but like really dependent... it's incredible) that we simply can't move to that free market world without a transitional model, which I think the UBI fits perfectly.
Replies (1)
I think it will be both worlds, in that there will be small Bitcoin communities where everything becomes cheaper year after year, and large UBI communities where everything becomes more expensive.
It all comes down to - you can't de-fund and limit a government by accepting the money that the government can print out of thin air.
You can never have abundance in a UBI society where the government sends everyone fake money and everyone can afford everything while the governments inflates the debt away.
You can however move towards abundance in a Bitcoin society where the current inflation is very low and keeps getting lower every 4 years, where all of productivity flows to everyone.
Governments will of course use this to vilify Bitcoiners and paint them as evil and greedy.
It will be the have nots (UBI slaves) vs the haves (Bitcoiners, business owners, etc) + critical thinkers who know how the communist story ends.
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw (1944)
If I were you, I'd listen to more Jeff Booth and less Saylor.
