Father Nick Blaha on Nostr: For what it's worth, the Catholic tradition has quite a long history of arguing that ...
For what it's worth, the Catholic tradition has quite a long history of arguing that certain things which are immoral should not therefore also be illegal.
I am drawn to the moral agnostic quality of the Bitcoin protocol, as you are. It presents a certain set of trade-offs that are very compelling in our present cultural and political setting, as well as in relationship to the weaknesses of human nature in general. But where I would draw the line versus where a true maximalist would draw it is at the point where this agnostic stance is used as the basis to order my own life and the life of society as a whole. I believe this is to commit the same error as those who subscribe to scientism. The scientific method is true and powerful, so far as it goes. The problem is when it is misused an exhaustive explanation of all of reality.
The two cases you describe above are objectionable to many, agreed. How would you address a third case, namely: Those who are incapable of deciding for themselves whether or not pornography or marijuana are things they can enjoy without being enslaved or damaged by them? The difficulty is to recognize that some people, in the act of trying these things so as to determine whether or not they can enjoy them without abuse, will be compromised by the very act of trying them.
I am drawn to the moral agnostic quality of the Bitcoin protocol, as you are. It presents a certain set of trade-offs that are very compelling in our present cultural and political setting, as well as in relationship to the weaknesses of human nature in general. But where I would draw the line versus where a true maximalist would draw it is at the point where this agnostic stance is used as the basis to order my own life and the life of society as a whole. I believe this is to commit the same error as those who subscribe to scientism. The scientific method is true and powerful, so far as it goes. The problem is when it is misused an exhaustive explanation of all of reality.
The two cases you describe above are objectionable to many, agreed. How would you address a third case, namely: Those who are incapable of deciding for themselves whether or not pornography or marijuana are things they can enjoy without being enslaved or damaged by them? The difficulty is to recognize that some people, in the act of trying these things so as to determine whether or not they can enjoy them without abuse, will be compromised by the very act of trying them.