If I were to convince a Bitcoiner to embrace Libertarianism, this is an outline of how I would do it:
The Bitcoin network is not fully resistant to censorship as long as there's a government monopoly in the regulation of the provision of internet services.
An ISP is legally bound to block off your internet access if the state orders it to.
Spectrum is considered a public good that everybody owns, in theory.
The state owns all of it, in practice.
By 'own', I mean that the state has the ultimate say in the usage of spectrum and the ends towards which it is used.
Ownership rights in spectrum is inevitable and necessary since there exists scarcity and conflict regarding its use.
However, no homesteading or first appropriation was involved in government ownership of spectrum.
A law was written and passed, after which the started owning all of it, by fiat. (Whether this was done democratically or by other means does not matter. Fiat is fiat)
The state then leases out the spectrum to ISPs, through auctions.
You'll also need to procure the mandated licenses to set up an ISP.
Hence, a libertarian legal order which enables the provision of internet to become fully privatized is necessary for Bitcoin to become truly censorship-resistant.
"Donald Trump Is Not the Bitcoin President
He’s the stablecoin president, seeking to expand the monetary power and borrowing capacity of the U.S. government."
by Alex Gladstein
Reason.com
Donald Trump is not the bitcoin president
He’s the stablecoin president, seeking to expand the monetary power and borrowing capacity of the U.S. government.
Hoppe's description of Hinduism in 'Economy, Society and History' is not fully accurate. Very much in contrast to the insane depth that his guru Rothbard goes into while taking about subjects like this. But that's okay.
He is criticized for attributing cultural conditions to the development of libertarian ideas. And that's not okay.
Tradition, religion and culture needs to be challenged by Reason, all day everyday. (And so does History).
I would modify or add to Hoppe's points the following:
I'm from Tamilnadu and my points are going to be centred around Tamil society.
Tamilnadu has been undergoing a century-long challenge and reform to its caste system, kickstarted by the spread of Rationalist ideas.
The caste system is an atrocious monstrosity. The sooner it is gotten rid of, the better.
(Side bar: Some cultural customs, like the belief in determinism, which involves the practice of using horoscopes to make decisions, still persist among people. That hinders entrepreneurial progress also. But as long as it doesn't become a part of government policy, it's fine. To be honest, it's hilariously not that different from drawing lines on charts to make investment decisions. Or using statistical aggregates to plan the economy, which is indeed a part of economic policy all over the world, sadly.)
State policies like affirmative action, wealth redistribution, etc. has unsurprisingly failed at addressing the caste system. It's only made things worse by amplifying caste-based tensions. The reformers were largely liberals who became liberals after it got corrupted by socialist and egalitarian ideas.
State policy that inculcated libertarian principles, e.g. 1991 liberalisation, opening up of imports and exports, making private property universal, removing the barriers to the private production of goods and services, partial privatization of health and education, defense of self-ownership and natural rights and introduction of contract laws, have helped.
Bottom-up organic reforms like voluntary abandonment of caste-based surnames, the spread of rationalist ideas through media and literature, widespread cultural shifts that made 'going back to the old ways' a non-starter in serious political discussions have played a major role in Tamil society shedding the ideas that held its people back from economic advancement.
Tamil people having one of the highest household gold holdings, not only in comparison with other Indian regions, but also regions all over the world, would have helped a lot with being resilient to Socialist planning that occured from 1947 - 1991 and the crony capitalist regulatory capture that has occured since 1991 - present day.
Tamil society has also had religious doctrines that are distinct from the rest of India, which are conducive to rationalist and libertarian ideas.
Tamil Shaivism does not explicitly advocate for a caste system. It is a doctrine, when interpreted properly, that helps people look inward.
I've personally never found it difficult to whole-heartedly embrace libertarian ideas while also keeping my religious predispositions intact. That's got to amount to a good deal in this argument.
The Siddhar tradition and its epistemology, part of the Tamil Shaivite school, is not at all well-known among 'mainstream' Hindu thought. It is low-key, but incredibly influential in Tamil society. That's the right combination and I hope it stays that way. Even if people attempt at making it popular, only those who have good gurus would be able to grok it. And those who do grok it won't go about waging wars, expropriating property and pursuing conquest and subjugation. They simply take care of themselves, their lives and their families and if possible, bring about a positive impact to their society.
This tradition constitutes social power.
Social power is not the same as state power.
Which brings me to the point about intellectuals and opinion moulders, whom Libertarians have rightly pointed out as the legitimizers of the state and engineers of consent.
And boy have they legitimized and engineered many kings and states for centuries. They are at fault for the feudal caste system, customary laws, decline in economic freedoms, parasitic wealth extraction and many other socially destructive phenomena commonly attributed to the state.
The point:
There's nothing inherently corrupt in Hinduism and its epistemology, if understood with the right guidance.
It's the intellectuals and opinion moulders who have corrupted it.
Rothbard would've understood this.
If someone tells me that a religion has not been corrupted this way, they are not seeking truth, but rather propaganda.
Monarchs and their intellectual allies corrupted Hinduism and Indian culture. And so have democratic caretakers and their bureaucrats.
Monarchy was a god that failed long ago in India.
And so is democracy.
Neither is preferable.
No state is the best state.
Monopoly in the provision of legal, defence, administrative and police services has so many political, social and economic consequences. It's insane.
Got a similar feeling when I learnt about the consequences of monopoly in money.
I can't unlearn it or unthink it. These ideas live rent-free in my head.
The best economic and educational decision I made was to not study economics at a university and download the books of some of these people for free at mises(.)org instead 😂
View quoted note →Hazlitt doesn't talk about Capitalism vs Socialism in his book 'Economics in One Lesson', but rather takes apart particular economic interventions by the government in a 'wertfreiheit' (value-free) manner, and analyzes their causes and consequences.
Lot of ammo in there for Bitcoiners to use when advocating against fiat money, since the demand for most interventions are downstream of the distortionary effects of fiat policies.
Entrenched concentration of wealth caused by the cantillon effect results in people finding progressive income tax and other taxes on the wealthy more palatable as a policy.
Small and Medium businesses face some of the biggest challenges from the fiat system as the big corpos, as a function of being closer to the money spigot, outcompete them despite losing money in the process. Despite being profitable and efficient, they see those who simply have access to cheaper credit lines wreck their operations. Thus, they demand support in the form of cheap credit, price fixing and production subsidies.
Without money that appreciates in value, or the prices of goods and services never going down, there will be ever lower standards of living for savers and workers. Add to this the fact that small and medium businesses simply can't fill the gap in demand for employment, since they are competing with the fiat cronies. Electoral demand for minimum wage laws, employment programs, socialization of industries to generate employment, affirmative action for the economically backward, establishment or expansion of welfare programs, direct cash transfers will all follow.
As savings decline and productivity takes a hit, governments start becoming uncomfortable with the increase in imports from more productive economies. This impacts the margins of existing domestic producers. Hence, they start demanding restrictions in trade, which means trade restrictioms, trade bans and import tariffs. Export subsidies would also be introduced.
It's a slow creep of government into the economy, with the support of the populace, and they would barely realize or recognize what's actually going on. People in the market would actually welcome these interventions because they think it is in their best interests. The government would think that they are indeed acting in the best interests of the people they claim to serve.
The result is a tool of wealth extraction by the power elite from market entrepreneurs and capital formers, with the latter willingly enabling this without realising what they are consenting to.
It is a form of slavery in which the slave doesn't know that he is being enslaved. Even if he does, he thinks it is a good thing. He thinks the alternative of being free would be a bad thing.
That's one of the most insidious consequences of fiat money.
'Ten Things Millennials Should Know About Socialism' by Thomas DiLorenzo
If a set of retarded ideas has wiped out the wealth, culture and lives of every single society that has adopted it, we ought to be aware of atleast ten things about it.
Most anti-government revolutions, protests and movements also tend to make a region revert back to previous conditions or likely leave them worse off than before because they are moved by bad, incomplete or inconsistent ideas.
Bitcoin is a good idea. It will win and is winning without the need for violence. It's unique like that.
Natural rights, sound money, free speech, private property, voluntary contracts, free markets, free banking, common law, economic specialization, division of labour, self-ownership, right to self-defense, freedom of trade, natural justice are good ideas.
Economic planning, price controls, central banking, fiat money, forced wealth redistribution, arbitrary expropriation of property, egalitarianism, state-granted monopolies, positive law and social justice are bad ideas.
It's not some inevitable 'power vacuum' that a state fills.
It's a vacuum of good ideas about how humans ought to organize, interact, cooperate and resolve conflict that get filled by bad ideas about the same.
The extent to which the people in a region adopt a good idea or a bad idea determines their standard of living, level of civility, economic advancement, stability, peace and prosperity. I'd go out on a limb and add moral and spiritual advancement as well.
People in civilised and advanced economies, societies and cultures are lucky enough that they can peacefully advocate for the good ideas without starting from scratch, since they are already recognised and widely accepted to a certain extent, atleast implicitly.
Those who aren't as fortunate will have to do a lot more intellectual brunt work. Possibly, they would face some degree of violence and threat to their livelihood as well.
Thus, it isn't surprising that certain regions remain unstable, poor and uncivilised no matter what, while others do fine in this regard.
It's always the ideas that make or break a society.
H/T Murray Rothbard
Something that Libertarians (and Bitcoiners) can be rightly made fun of for is the fact that those who believe in these things don't take to the streets or participate in picketing or violent revolutions. I personally admire it and like it, but it can definitely be laughed at.
Could be because of the fact that they don't want the means to contradict the ends. How can one be an advocate of the non-aggression principle while aggressing on a peaceful individual's person and property? They can't.
And they know that mobs are never rational in how they go about things, hence they do not form one.
Emotional appeals are often avoided because, being rationalists, they understand that emotions muddle the process of arriving at the truth.
Instead, they write, publish and say a lot of words through podcasts, lectures, books, debates, discussions, articles and conferences. It's the right way to go, but will take an enormous amount of time, energy, patience and investment.
Above all, since all of this is a low time preference endeavour, the kind of people who would be receptive to libertarian ideas are also often the kind who won't protest in the streets or participate in violent revolutions, strikes or picketing.
They're too busy with their jobs, businesses, families, kids, side hustles, main hustles, moonlighting, earning, saving, building, etc.
It's like God is making fun of us 🤣
Every point spot on except the second one. A priori truths exist. A posteriori observation and evidence is not the only method of arriving at the truth.
No amount of evidence is going to convince me that natural rights don't exist, that free speech is conditional or that justice is anything the mob decides it to be.
Resharing this brilliant lecture from Mises:
Text version:
https://mises.org/online-book/liberty-and-property/liberty-property
Any group claiming to speak for the 'masses'/'the common man', and against cronyism, ought to be radical proponents of free markets, laissez-faire, tax scrapping, deregulation and total privatization. Especially those who call themselves 'liberators of the people'. The government is the ultimate cause of enslavement, cronyism and inequality.
They ought to be advocating for introducing market competition, private property and abolishing state-granted monopoly privileges in every walk of life. This was the original left wing position, because no single entity or human being can sustain their position on top in a free market without providing useful services that the masses require and demand. They can only do so with the help of the government.
Quote from the lecture:
"Under capitalism, private property of the factors of production is a social function. The entrepreneurs, capitalists, and land owners are mandataries, as it were, of the consumers, and their mandate is revocable. In order to be rich, it is not sufficient to have once saved and accumulated capital. It is necessary to invest it again and again in those lines in which it best fills the wants of the consumers. The market process is a daily repeated plebiscite, and it ejects inevitably from the ranks of profitable people those who do not employ their property according to the orders given by the public."
