In this course, I've tried to show that the real divide is not between the left, the right or the center, all of which have assumed a statist postulate. Ultimately, all the classic political families share a distrust of the free market and a penchant for state interventionism.

But what about those who want less government and less centralization? Bitcoin users, for example, who want to end the monopoly on money creation. How do we place them in this political spectrum?

In fact, the real political divide lies in fundamental philosophical principles: freedom or coercion, voluntary consent or coercion, the responsible individual or the collective.

The right way to think about politics is to start from ethical principles rather than labels.

From then on, the political question was no longer: do you want to make the important decisions in your life, or do you want someone else to make them for you?

On a more general level, the philosophical question is this: should social organization be the product of a deliberate plan devised and imposed by the political class, or the result of a free evolution that emerges from voluntary interactions between all the players in economic and social life?

This new political divide, based on opposition between principles, brings to light a political family that is very real but often ignored by the general public: the libertarians.

From a libertarian point of view, individuals have both the right and the responsibility to make their own decisions. In contrast, conventional political families, from left to right, believe that government should make some or many of the important decisions in an individual's life and in economic life in general.

But why should some impose their lifestyle and worldview on others?

In a genuine regime of freedom, those who adhere to the ideals of the left can live according to their principles. They are free to give up their possessions, to share the means of production they own, or to donate their wages to an organization of their choice, which could redistribute these funds to the most disadvantaged or support cultural initiatives and businesses that promote employment.

By the same token, in this regime of freedom, those who share right-wing values have the right to live according to their convictions: to work hard, to save, to pass on family and national values to their children, to avoid content contrary to their morals, or to choose not to employ this or that type of worker. No one should impose their way of life on others. It is through the freedom of the market and the power of choice that our goals can be achieved peacefully.

In short, the fundamental divergence between political trends lies in the role of the centralized state: socialists and conservatives use the state to impose their vision of society, while libertarians advocate decentralization, leaving individuals and private communities to define and organize society, according to their preferences and in line with property rights.

That's why Bitcoin is also a political rupture. It's a peaceful revolt against the politicization of money and its confiscation by a small minority. Bitcoin is not about right and left. On the contrary, it's a market currency opposed to state money.

State or fiat money is a coercive, centralized system that's easy to create, inexpensive and has an unfortunate tendency to lose value.

Conversely, market money, illustrated historically by gold and currently by Bitcoin, is a healthy, hard-to-produce currency that emerges voluntarily, spontaneously and retains its value over the long term.

Thus Bitcoin, thanks to its fixed supply and decentralized nature, represents the healthiest form of currency ever invented, offering a potential alternative to the expansion of state power and the unlimited financing of wars.

Finally, Bitcoin is not a classic political project, in the sense of a state or coercive initiative. It's a technology that allows individuals to decide for themselves, which paradoxically has far-reaching political consequences in limiting centralized, domineering powers.