Skip to main content

The Underlying Problem with Young Americans For Liberty

  The Underlying Problem with Young Americans For Liberty   Derrell McIver Warning: This article includes discussion and description of sexual harassment.   “Political power is not being chummy with politicians. To effect real change, you have to threaten a politician's power.” -anonymous This is a very difficult article for me to write. Going into college, I did not know how of any political organization that shared my values of Liberty. That was until I helped in the founding of a Young Americans for Liberty chapter and became a dues-paying-member. After a brief interest in the Libertarian Party, I realized that YAL and its associated organizations were the best chance we have at seeing Liberty in politics in our lifetimes. Some people will read this article and call it “cancel culture.” That is not the intent. For that very reason, I have not included the name of the sexual harasser. Instead he will be given the name ‘John’. My goal here is to call out the leaders

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 anarchist, it’s time to turn the other cheek. You're in for another slap. 

Bitcoin ABC has put forward an Infrastructure Funding Plan whereby 8% of Coinbase mining rewards will be automatically diverted into their pockets. It appears they intend on forcing this change down the throat of the p2p cash community come hell or high water. 

Not to worry. Obviously, anybody with half a brain can figure out that allowing ONE development firm to pick and choose which projects to fund is far less efficient than the market-driven, entrepreneurial system of profit & loss. Right? 

I mean, any libertarian who’s familiar with Hayek knows that shifting responsibility for resource allocation from entrepreneurs to a centralized firm, forces reliance on a pretense of knowledge, inevitably bound for failure. And any austro-libertarian vaguely familiar with Mises’ economic calculation problem understands why a market deprived of the appropriate pricing mechanisms can never have an efficient allocation of resources. Indeed, all crypto-anarchists must surely know that the free rider problem is a myth - used only to justify market intervention & the forced subsidization of unsolicited goods & services. Right?

Think again, friends. 


If the seemingly crystal clear economic case isn’t clear enough, consider the historical case. 

There are exactly zero examples in all of human history of a sound currency’s infrastructure being developed by one centralized firm. The mere thought is ludicrous. Gold mints, mines, and banks were owned and operated by independently functioning market actors. The only information they used to coordinate with each other were prices. 

In stark contrast, infrastructure surrounding every fiat currency has been developed exactly as ABC proposes - with one centralized entity entirely determining the route development will take. 

In the case of USD, the Federal Reserve is led by Jerome Powell and decisions regarding future development are made by the FOMC. In our case, ABC is led by Amaury Sechet and decisions regarding future development are made by ‘the council.’ Just as politics determines who’s fit for the FOMC, so too will it determine who's deemed worthy for Sechet’s ‘council.’ Indeed, it already has. 

Who does the IFP benefit? 

On the surface, it may seem as if the IFP is in the interests of a small group of developers, but even this is overstating the case. The death of peer to peer cash & the imposition of peer to ABC to peer cash, means the prolongation of the Federal Reserve’s currency monopoly. In the long run, this doesn’t benefit Sechet, ABC or anyone else for that matter. 


Moreover, Sechet’s preference for the short term gratification of mining rewards over the true prize of central bank disintermediation is indicative of a high time preference. This high time preference is itself brought about by existing central bank policies, and it’s in this roundabout way that the Fed is able to perpetuate it’s cycle of degeneracy and slavery. 

Nor does the IFP benefit agorists. Disrupting the nature of p2p cash to line ABC’s pockets is directly opposed to our mission of providing the public with sound money alternatives to Federal Reserve notes. Peer to peer cash is the tool Satoshi created, & it’s the tool Ross Ulbricht showed us how to use so effectively. 

Peer to ABC to peer cash is great for making ABC boatloads of money, but it's far less useful for counter-economic purposes. 

Comments

  1. Where's your bch Dobson address? Would love to support your work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Absolutely outstanding analysis, thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The miners requested this funding mechanism to make their donations fair (between BCH miners) to remove the "free rider miners" problem that disincentivized the other miner's desire to donate. ABC control over the funding is a problem I think needs to be fixed, but I see no evidence the funds will be used for anything but making BCH greater faster. If the miners want to donate like this to make BCH better, think about who would want to block that strategy of funding BCH developers. Note the anti-BCH troll army of social engineering agents created the anti-ABC and anti-IFP movement to harm BCH. Their arguments are mostly flawed but very well designed to seem true. Many have been fooled into thinking dividing BCH developers and the community is the best way to go here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No they did not. 0% of miners voted for it in the lead up to 15 May 2020 and 0% are signaling for it now. LITERALLY ZERO.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear America, I Won't Be Locking Down

Dear America I won’t be locking down, not that I ever did. And I don’t care about the arbitrary mandates of a geriatric pedophile with a history of dementia. I don’t wear the muzzle or social distance. Nor do I have any plans to start. I won’t be avoiding friends or family & I actively seek out large public gatherings. Needless to say, it’ll be a cold, cold day in hell before the government injects my living body with a foreign substance or keeps me from my family on Thanksgiving Day. You see, I knew from day one that COVID was a hoax. More specifically, when videos of Chinese people dropping dead in the streets were being broadcasted by Western propaganda outlets, it became clear this was essentially a soft coup. As a general rule, anything coming from the CCP should immediately be assumed to be intentionally falsified for malicious purposes. Friends, what has happened is obvious. The political cartel has manufactured a virus because fear enables them to seize power & furthers

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

Against the LP

Agorism has no room for politics.  The Agora & political institutions can coexist no more than a state of marriage & bachelorhood can coexist. Counter-economics & politicking are likewise mutually exclusive. Frankly, it should seem obvious that engaging in politics & anti-politics is contradictory & self-defeating. It wouldn’t make much sense to get chemo in the morning & smoke a pack of Marlboros in the evening, so why would one seek to destroy the government today, and empower it tomorrow?  Just as a chemist who tests a logically inconsistent theory will experience failure, so too will social scientists & revolutionaries experience failure when they pursue inconsistent theories.  Note that without exception - every gain made by the liberty community in the past 15 years has been produced by the counter-economy & that no other faction of our movement can claim even a small victory . Here’s a brief look at the scoreboard: Whereas the LP & small gov