What happens if a minority group is hard headed? What if it is their way or the highway?

Most of us here live in democracies of some form or another.

Democracy is founded on the idea of letting the people come together and decide how to run things, based on the what the majority of people care to do. The assumption made in democracy is that all voters will be team players. To be a proper democrat (not the american political party) you have to be willing to do things that you don't want to if the majority of you fellow voters decide to.

But what happens if a minority group is stubborn?

The first time we experienced something like this was as kids. Maybe you were at your friend Tommy's house because he was the first kid to get the latest gaming console. You and 2 of your friends want to play Mario Kart, but Tommy only wants to play Mortal Kombat.

Tommy, who only represents 1/4 of the population, says that it is Mortal Kombat or nothing at all. The three of you want to play Nintendo, and would prefer Mario Kart, but will settle for Mortal Kombat if the only other option is no N64 at all.

Tommy is the stubborn minority. For him the only possible win is playing Mortal Kombat. It is the only way he can derrive utility from a vidya session but you and your other two friends will derive some utility from playing any game, even the sub-optimal fighting game.

	Mario Kart	Mortal Kombat
Tommy	0 happy points	10 happy points
You and your other 2 friends	3 happy points	2 happy points

it's been a couple of years since I took Game Theory but the above is my approximation of a 'stubborn minority game'

The three of you are flexible. The fact that you aren't playing your preferred game sucks, but at least you get to play something right?

Because the game can't be played without Tommy approving, and because the three of you want to play more than you want to play Mario Kart you fold to him.

I was inspired to write this because of this article by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

Let us conjecture that the formation of moral values in society doesn’t come from the evolution of the consensus. No, it is the most intolerant person who imposes virtue on others precisely because of that intolerance. The same can apply to civil rights.
-Nassim Nicholas Taleb

The above quote is taken from the article I linked to previously. Taleb argues that a passive majority group doesn't decide the future, that the future is instead decided by small passionate minority groups who view compromise as failure.

Minority Rule in Food

Taleb goes onto describe how we see this in food. From Halal foods being increasingly common to America's favorite nut being marginalized.

The Peanut

Take for example the humble peanut. Once the go to snack on plains and classrooms it has now been demonized because a very small minority of people are deathly allergic to it.

I personally really like peanuts, but if I'm in a situation where a person I'm with will die by being next to one I'll happily eat almonds or pretzels or anything else. I'm flexible. But the allergic folk are not. No peanuts ever.

This is why many schools have become peanut free, and airplanes rarely if ever serve them nowadays.

Why Europe Will Go Halal

Strict Muslims will not eat any meat that isn't Halal. To be halal the animal's (fish and seafood are exceptions) must be slaughtered with a deep deep cut that cuts the front of the throat, the carotid artery, trachea, and jugular veins. The butcher also has to say the Islamic prayer 'Bismillah' "in the name of God"

Can you taste the difference? No, of course not.

So non-Muslims could eat halal meat and be none the wiser, and for the most part they don't care. They are flexible. But for the Faithful, this process is a must. Because the process's cost is negligible, the quality of the product doesn't change, and building out separate display cases and managing an additional product line is prohibitively expensive many grocers find that it is easier to just source halal meat.

The above quote is meant to be inspirational. The reader is supposed to leave feeling jazzed knowing that her world view, is she is committed enough, can be projected onto others and in effect change the world. This is true. Is it a good thing? Maybe, maybe not. But if the majority of the population is fine with being flexible then so be it. Not too big of a deal.

How can we use stubbornness to our advantage?

It is fair to guess that a large share of people here on steemit are believers in the blockchain and the decentralization of existing power structures. It is also fair to suppose that believers in the blockchain are very much in the minority globally. We can also safely assume that the rest of the population in large doesn't understand monetary policy, and for that matter doesn't really care about what their money so long as it spends.

What would happen if we insisted on paying and being paid in crypto?

Could we insist that people pay us in Bitcoin? Sure. Would it be easy? No, probably not. But if in one sector of life we were hardliners on this then maybe. Maybe you insist that you will only pay your landlord in BTC. If you live in a state like California where tenant rights are insanely high, a landlord when facing an unusual payment method vs. having you squat in his place rent free for a year is sure to make the decision that is most in his favor. Plus the transaction costs will be lower.