This article is a respectful part agreement but more disagreement with Dennis Porter’s article, “Why Bitcoin Represents The Ultimate Single-Issue Voting Bloc.”
Bitcoin Is Apolitical
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.
Bitcoin And The Proposed Single-Issue Voter
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.
Some Bitcoiners Are Single-Issue Voters
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…
