Skip to main content

Becoming Your Own Bank: Bitcoin for Beginners

Traditionally, in order to successfully exchange goods with an individual or firm not physically present, one must utilize a third party. With online shopping, the most obvious example - this third party usually takes the form of a credit card company, bank, or other payment processor such as PayPal. This third party is neither a buyer nor a seller. In the context of the exchange, the third party's sole function is to verify both the transmission & receipt of funds. For this service, they will of course collect a small fee.

Unfortunately, our enemy, the state, has discovered that by exercising control over a small number of the most popular third parties, they can succesfully interject themselves into our financial affairs. Thus, banks are used to rob us via inflation. Taxes are extorted at the point of sale. Black market products are prohibited from exchange. Etcetera.

The advent of Bitcoin in 2008 provided sufficient disintermediation to alleviate all of these concerns entir…

Nothing Personal...Except Your Freedom




What is freedom? How do we protect it? As a libertarian, anarchist, agorist, minarchist, collapsatarian, or whatever liberty-minded label your strut from this radical spectrum, it's easy to get bogged down attempting to differentiate between human rights (civil rights/personal freedom), and property rights (economic freedom). Many seem to make the mistake of conflating the two, and how each rely on the other. This is a fundamental principle of the liberty movement that I believe anyone who is passionate about liberty and educating it to the masses should be 100% comfortable with articulating. The truth is, you can't have one freedom without the other. It's a part of our creed of self-ownership, and property rights.


It is undeniable that the basis of the libertarian creed stems from the Non-Aggression Axiom/Principle, and property rights. To exert aggression on someone is a violation of their right of property: be it their car, laptop, or punching them square in the nose. In layman’s terms, “don’t hurt people, don’t take their stuff.” The NAP implies the universal understanding and self evident recognition of the inalienable rights of personal and economic liberty. How so? Let’s break this down real quick:


“Don’t hurt people”, naturally implies that inflicting harm on an individual is violating them on a personal level; their personal liberty. If I were to break your leg, I have therefore neglected the legitimacy of your civil/personal freedom through the use of coercive force.

“Don’t take their stuff”, naturally implies theft, which is infringing on one’s property rights. We all know that taxation is theft, but let’s remember that theft is still theft. Your property is yours alone. For me to steal your car, is straight up theft. I have therefore neglected the legitimacy of your economic freedom through the use of coercive force.


As libertarians, we should all understand that the number one threat and enemy of our individual liberty is the state. Any act of force imposed by the state upon an individual ultimately is a violation of said individual’s property right. It may start as a hit against civil liberty, but state coercion is always a property rights infringement, or invasion. Your body, your property. This implies that the state neglects you have self ownership, and, therefore, the state owns you. You’re nothing but a slave to the state.


Therefore, to infringe on my personal liberty, or decision rather, to consume cocaine, is also violating the property that is my body. It’s my body, and I should be able to put whatever substance I want into, beneficial or harmful, so long as I’m not infringing anyone else’s property rights around me. Plus, making it illegal to buy cocaine then infringes on my economic freedom of purchasing power and automatically makes me a criminal. Crime, in the eyes of a libertarian, is defined as violent invasion on someone’s person or property. All liberties are vulnerable to state violence, and therefore subject of an attack on one’s person/property. Therefore, if my personal and property rights are vulnerable to danger by the state, that’s an attack on all of my liberties, and the difference between personal and economic liberty is then irrelevant.

Any decision made by an individual, be it personal or economical, is done so under the assumption, and legitimacy of self ownership of the decider. Ergo, any/all aggression/coercion against the individual’s decision is an attack on one’s property. Self-ownership is having full responsibility of all actions performed by an individual.

Using force to prevent you from making a personal decision is to dismiss one’s free will. Coercion deprives people the freedom to choose the “correct” option, which the state thinks is for “their own good”. Therefore people are forced to doing something, whether they like it or not.

To quote the great Murray N. Rothbard in For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto:
“Coercion deprives man the freedom to choose, and therefore, is deprived to choose morally.”

No matter how much it tries to intervene, the state can't foresee, nor dictate an economy. That would be neglecting the personal liberties and subjective value of individuals (which are supposedly protected by a piece of paper...at least in America). Peace and prosperity is achieved by the private sector. Not the public sector.


The public sector/the state only survives by stealing from the productive private sector. The state is a parasite, and we're its host. Only voluntary interaction based on individual self-interest and subjective value, will provide a fruitful and self-sufficient society to supply all needed demands. Not government.

The inseparability of Personal and Economic Liberty is how a peaceful society works: respecting the personal liberty of one another allows us to create the resources needed to survive, and then some; capital gains, and enjoying the fruits of our labor. Economic freedom is also having the personal liberty to choose what goods/services provide the most value to YOUR subjective needs/standards. That personal demand of quality forces businesses to innovate and increase the standards of their operation. This is achieved through true free-market, economic freedom, and therefore a better quality of life for everyone.

Economic liberty allows for free-market economics as the natural law and order of man. It’s moral, and the natural law of man’s needs. Any intervention of this natural order is a violation and coercive aggressive violence of one’s self ownership and absolute right to be a human. Supply and demand. The only way this is achieved is by, as a certain someone told me, our obligation to not aggress against anyone. This should be "self evident". This beautiful equilibrium of Leonard Reed's "Invisible Hand" in I, Pencil, or simply the free market being left untouched by state intervention, is what makes self-governance a reality. Without both personal, and economic liberty, this paradise is only a dream.

As Libertarians, if we’re to follow our creed of the NAP, then both personal and economic liberty must be recognized. Liberty is preserved by accepting the legitimacy of these natural rights that we claim to be self-evident. Otherwise, we can’t claim to be the “most consistent” out of the political vending machine. A violation of any one of your liberties is a violation on all of them. Period. Nothing Personal...except your freedom of course.


To hear more from the author, Mr. Pseu, subscribe to his podcast, A Boy Named Pseu!























Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…

Don't Vote for Alex

It is 2019 and in Norway, that means county and city-election year. You can vote for me, but this article is all about why you really shouldn't. [1] There are several ways to say 'No'. This is a story about the time I said 'Yes', what I will stay positive to and what I will be negative toward. 

"But it is immoral to support politicians to oppress us because they might relieve us one oppression" - Samuel Edward Konkin III


First of all, there is some explaining to do: In my last article on the New Libertarian I argued that party politics is a waste of time and that you could use that time more productive so this entire piece seems like its contradicting that one. It might, that is up to you to judge for yourself (and if you want a chat I'm very approachable on Twitter), but in my defense, I will highlight two things:

One: I'm not against solution-finding, culture-building or exchange of ideas. I can give no brighter example of this happening than the…