Bitcoin bull Anthony Pompliano and author Michael Shellenberger Discussed Disagreement boils down to contrasting perspectives on the role of government.
Shellenberger is an avid Bitcoin critic
Shellenberger likened his stance on Bitcoin to that of Senator Elizabeth Warren, who recently made a tough proposal. legislation “Leveling the playing field between cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrencies [the] The financial system in the wake of the FTX scandal”.
The author believes that there is no purpose to encrypting it, stating that regulating it would be pointless, and to him digital assets are not “real”.
“I think this is basically a pyramid scheme built on a criminal digital enterprise built on a beautiful digital art project.”
Pompliano responded by adopting a strategy that set aside the entire narrative that accompanies Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.
Instead, Pompliano sought common ground with Shellenberger by upholding three core beliefs. These were tackling inflation, challenging “supervisors” operating in ways contrary to the greater good, and upholding the U.S. Constitution and what it meant, including the protection of property rights and free speech.
Shellenberger has made it clear that his problems with Bitcoin are not based on differences in values. Rather, his skepticism stems from the “ridiculous” “libertarian illusion” that bitcoiners can escape the government. But government is necessary for social order and to protect the weak and vulnerable.
“We all care about public security and freedom and democracy, so it’s not a difference of values. I think there is a libertarian fantasy associated with…”
What should be the role of government?
In the pros and cons of Bitcoin, the debate touched on the confiscation of assets, which were confiscated by the Central Bank of Cyprus. 47.5% The example used is a bank deposit of over €100,000 in 2013.
“There is no other currency in the world that can hold it.
As citizens of nation-states, Schellenberger argues, nation-states must have the resources necessary for self-defense, whether by conscripting people to defend against hostile aggression or by confiscation of bank deposits to avoid financial collapse. He said he would use any means possible. This is how one lives under a nation-state called Shellenberger.
“Of course the government shuts down people’s assets. That’s what happens. It’s unfair or whatever, but you live in a nation-state.”
In response, Pompliano expressed a different view. A bewildered Schellenberg disputed this, stating that “recruitment is not the right word.”
Yet Pompliano persisted, saying that 100,000 Americans laid off expensive states like New York and California that didn’t meet their needs, and hired Texas and Florida instead. He pointed out that they have the freedom of personal choice to go where they are treated better, and they do so by voting with their feet.
“The government is here to represent the people, the people are not here to serve the government.”