Skip to main content

Against the IFP

Centralizing control over a currency’s infrastructure is a seemingly obvious mistake.

One would think any Austro-libertarian worth their salt would be able to see thru such a charade. Yet here we are, again. Face to face with economic illiteracy. Not garden variety lefist economic illiteracy, but one far more stinging and painful - one which comes from within our own community, rather than from without. 

First, Bitcoiners faced the economic illiteracy of maximalism and small blockers. Attempts to masquerade money’s primary function as value storage (Ammous) or rejecting Menger’s Regression Theorem altogether (Szabo) are luckily demonstrably false. Nevertheless, the shock of our fellow Bitcoiners illiteracy was like an unexpected slap in the face. Suddenly, we were forced to confront the fact that the ignorance of our allies in the fight for sound money, had led them astray. Yet, thru BCH we were thankfully able to keep Satoshi’s dream of peer to peer cash intact. 
Well, crypto anarch…

The Practicality of Anti-Politics





The Zero Sum Game of Parliamentary Seats

The idea of democracy, and the idealistic sculpture its supporters have carved out of that idea is nothing short of a bootleg & a fraud. The propaganda surrounding the idea is so strongly rooted in the public DNA that it has become alien to question the institution of democracy itself. If you follow the norms and codes of the day, you might have permission to nibble on the corners of individual ideas from the institution, but don't you dare touch the structure, that one is built on sacred land!

It isn't hard to see why the idea is protected and nurtured by willing participants in the fraud. It's promoted, packaged and marketed neatly - but when there is no correlation between the product & it's description, you are just buying into the trailer's glamour and special effects, not the movie.

You get one vote. If your idea (vote) is part of the majority, you win, otherwise your side lose.[1]


The reality outside of parliament, however, isn't that binary or direct: You have several choices in almost anything. The parliament on the other hand removes choice. One can argue that it might not be the whole point, but for sure a great part of the point. If I decide on a purchase, or pick a different road to take home than I did yesterday, it doesn't mean the other options vanishes.[2]

I'm not particularly interested in removing choices for others that aren't directly opposing me. What if theirs was the best choice? Or the only one they could afford? What if the choice of others evolve to something I don't want to miss out on in the future?

It isn't in my best interest to restrict options, but rather to expand them, and that is strike one against participating in parliamentary politics. For me; voting and hoping to win is force. The system is set up in such a way that if my side wins an election we are restricting others for participating in something they believe in. Parliamentary seats are limited, there is a zero sum game being played. Something I take removes something from someone else under such conditions.


I'm not interested in doing that, I'm interested in building something completely different. Let those democratic worshipers go to their temple and do their business.


Print your own Permission Slip

"What is a more effective way of protecting your privacy rights: Giving your money to Bill Weld or downloading Tor?" - Sal The Agorist [3]

One common stance on the insistence on using politics is "If you don't partake in politics, you open yourself up to become a victim to the decisions of others". Which looks like a fair position to take, until you realize the vast amount of time and money you need to pool together to protect yourself.

In the last Swedish election the participation was a staggering 87%, last American had 61%. Granted, not everybody is going to vote against your particular idea, but to get your idea from your head and onto a government paper and getting it stamped and filed into the states ledger will still require an insane amount of money and energy. Elections are a billion dollar industry in America. It is a finely tuned and sophisticated business you need to elbow yourself into & good ideas alone aren't going to cut it. Even if you gather the resources to do it - you're still not guaranteed that it will work in an acceptable manner.


The power is far removed from the people, contrary to popular democratic propaganda. That single vote you have in your back pocket isn't going to buy you anything but a piece of a representative.

If you have millions of dollars to dedicate to a political cause, you can build an industry instead. If you have the ears of millions of people ready to listen to your ideas, you have a customer base. If you have neither, what do you think you will accomplish in politics except wasting your time?

"But the state will send its foot soldiers, tax you or shut you down!" - That might be, but that is nobody's fault but my own. The camouflage was weak, precautions weren't taken, I didn't trade with trusted parties, the trace could be followed straight back to me and so on.

Instead of spending time on a political vote that could get overturned come next election, it's more productive to work on solutions to the problem at hand. If there is no solution to a particular problem, hack the problem. Print your own permission slip. Build your network of like-minded people.

--- Alex Utopium
Editor for Utopium.blog
Support my work via crypto here
Tweet with me, Gab with me

----------------------------------------------------
[1] The negative 'lose' part is hardly ever spelled out in the official programming.

[2] To be precise, the choices doesn't vanish when government bans something either, but make the opportunity costs higher, artificially, which is hardly ideal.

[3] From Sal's Article: Against the Partyarchy


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Global Warming & Economics

Libertarians who deny the existence of global warming run the risk of making us all look like a bunch of illiterate fools.

Much like economics, being ignorant of planetology or climate science isn't a crime, but having a "loud and vociferous" opinion on the subject while remaining in a state of ignorance can be a dangerous thing. And frankly, the science behind climate change is elementary.

Sunlight enters our atmosphere and warms our planet. Earth then gives off that heat in the form of infrared radiation (this is the same principle behind those cool goggles our collapsitarian friends have). However, and this is a crucial point - the CO₂ molecules in our atmosphere do not allow IR to easily escape back into space. This is known as the greenhouse effect. As the temperature of the planet increases, polar ice caps melt and eventually surface water will begin to evaporate. Since H₂0 also prevents IR from escaping our atmosphere, the additional water vapor only compounds th…

Technological Agorism I: Digital Feudalism

We live in the age of digital feudalism.

In earlier times, peasants saw their productive capital rerouted to their feudal lords. Likewise, we modern serfs see the monetary value of our digital presence being rerouted to big tech CEOs. And just as medieval lords used this capital to maintain their elaborate manors & their status in the nobility (thru kickbacks to the monarch), these modern day lords do precisely the same. The advent of tokenization promises to change this.



Big tech has profited enormously from the digital peasantry in two ways. 
They earn money based on the popularity of user-generated content. In other words, we use FB, Twitter, & IG to view content posted not by these companies, but by the individuals who use their platforms. Big tech collects & monetizes our personal data & has been doing so for quite some time. Own Your Content The tokenization of digital content has already started the process of disrupting legacy business models. Seeing as the fir…

The Economics of BTC Maximalism

BTC maximalism is a flawed doctrine, fallacious in numerous respects. 

First, if you'd prefer to hear these arguments in audio, check out this recent episode of ABNP, where @mrpseu & I discused these same topics. 

Also, a qualifier: I'm not capable of making, defending or refuting technical arguments. I'll leave that aspect of the debate to others. My concerns with BTC maximalism are entirely economic and can be divided into four areas. 


Based on the criteria for saleability as laid out by the austrian school, BTC is not the most marketable digital commodity.A lack of portability relative to other cryptocurrencies implies BTC isn't as sound of a commodity. Value storage is a secondary function of money and cannot satisfy the use-value requirement of regression theorem. BTC maximalism lays waste to the Hayekian notion of competition as a discovery procedure. This final point was addressed in detail on episode 50 of The Agora, Crypto-Economics and thus, isn't elabor…