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

Bitcoin Maximalism: A House Divided





Based on the response to The Economics of Bitcoin Maximalism, it's become clear that not only is the maximalist community divided, but that the competing factions are speaking entirely different languages altogether.

I’ve separated the Bitcoin maximalists into several camps based on their ideologies.




The Saifedean School

Approximately half of the bitcoin maximalist community is at least wise enough to accept the validity of regression theorem. However, they falsely claim that the utility requirement of regression theorem is satisfied by its role as a store of value. This fiction was made popular by Saifedean Ammous in The Bitcoin Standard.

I’ve debunked this claim on several occasions (check out this recent episode of the CoinSpice podcast) by reiterating the Austrian position on the secondary functions of money. That is to say, money’s use as a store of value is secondary to, and dependent upon its ability to function as a medium of exchange. In other words, the reserve demand for money is derived from its exchange demand, not the other way around.


The Nick Szabo School

The other half of the bitcoin maximalist community boldly rejects the store of value claim; nor will they concede Bitcoin’s utility is p2p cash (as Satoshi said it was), since this would force them to sympathize with chains that enjoy lower transaction fees. However, by denying any utility of all cryptocurrencies, the Szabo school is forced to dispense with the regression theorem altogether.

In other words, since they’re unable to identify the initial use-value of Bitcoin, they throw the baby out with the bath water and scrap the entire theory. Nick Szabo once called me a dogmatist for defending the Austrian position. Guy Swann from the Cryptoconomy podcast, recently claimed here that regression theorem is a Keynesian idea!





The underlying problem with this line of thinking is that Mises described the regression theorem specifically to remove a circularity from the economic corpus.

As he explains in Chapter 8 of his Theory of Money and Credit:

“The money prices of today are linked with those of yesterday and before, and those of tomorrow and after.”

And,

“To trace back the value which money has today to that which it had yesterday to that which it had the day before, and so on, is to raise the question of what determined the value of money in the first place.”

According to the Austrians, that determining factor was the commodity’s utility. Gold & silver were, for example, initially utilized for decorative or ornamental purposes. By denying this utility requirement, maximalists are unable to explain the origins of money and thus, fail  to understand the nature of money entirely.

At minimum, it's incumbent upon anyone denying regression theorem to resolve this circularity since they’re reintroducing it to the economic literature. In this, the Szabo school and it’s adherents fail to even make an attempt.




The Fence Sitters

Some of the more vocal fence sitters include Michael Goldstein and Vijay Boyapati, but in truth, almost every maximalist pays homage to both Ammous and Szabo without understanding that their ideas are diametrically opposed to one another and are fundamentally mutually exclusive, let alone factually incorrect

This only serves to reinforce the idea that maximalists are either emotionally beholden to an incorrect position, or lack a solid foundation in economics altogether.


Bonus: The Craig Wright School

Ironically, the best argument I've heard for Bitcoin maximalism comes from the notorious BSV proponent, Dr. Craig Wright. In this episode of The Agora, he urged me to think of Bitcoin as a protocol like TCP, rather than as money. Although this explanation certainly makes sense in the framework of a metanet, it isn't as useful for cypherpunk and agorist purposes as a general currency is.






Comments

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