>As this point you've already lost everyone who doesn't already ready the same pamphlets you read and agree.
Usage of the term "Whig history" is not confined adherents of a particular ideology, and does not require one to have/not-have any particular set of beliefs to use it (other than believing that the history of some institution is not a story of progress)..
In other words, it's not comparable to "comrade".
>Appealing to this fact in a thread about cryptocurrency is beyond ironic.
There's a subtext that you're missing here, which is that the political system doesn't work when voters don't understand the system, which is unlike most domains, which manage complexity effectively.
For example, most people don't understand how microprocessors work. But this is addressed through an effective and spontaneous process of delegating responsibility.
The political process differs in this respect. The delegation process is baked in, as a result of built-in mechanisms that actively resist change. This prevents the kind of readjustment that occurs in other institutions. Meanwhile, those affected by policy are a captive audience, which eliminates a major feedback mechanism that exists in market-based systems.
These two factors result in the system as a whole not evolving toward greater efficacy. On the contrary, it has the potential to evolve toward greater exploitation.
>Political power will flow from the arrangement of bits only when the arrangement of bits determines who controls overwhelming military force. And not a moment before.
We'll see.