Topic: Are Bitcoiners Neoliberals? - page 8. (Read 9243 times)

This is undoubtedly true - as this forum itself is a testament to.

However, Amir Taaki talks a lot about how the technology is effectively embued/laiden with the values held by those that have coded it. I certainly think he has a point re. the subtle shifts in direction that BTC may or may not take. The current thread about the hard fork kind of illustrates this (if i understand it correctly)

But I'm at a loss really to understand the core values that lay behind bit coin/the block chain.

 I guess you could say that its "values" will be revealed in its practical usage - and that the nature of its usage depends largely upon how the code is subsequently developed.


If I were pushed I would have to say that, if anything, BTC has more in common with communitarianism than, say, neo liberalism - wether that be in its open source development, communities here like Bitcointalk, or in the (decentralised) nature of the protocol itself.

But its an academic point really - the bitcoin world itself is a broad church and so it should be.

I read the Goldberg book years ago, and I agree it's good. More people should read it.


A word can be used however people want to use it. I agree opponents of those ideas tend to use "neoliberalism" to refer to them. I just don't think advocates of the ideas use the term "neoliberalism" that way.

Suppose I started using the term "neostatist" to refer to people who hold lots of very mainstream beliefs about government. Are most people suddenly "neostatists"? A lot of disagreements could be avoided by giving neutral names to things. I suppose someone could give the definition they intend and then hash it and we could use the base58 representation of the hash.

Take your description "political movements that want to break down national sovereignty, freely trade and commodify natural resources, labor, and such."

Taking the sha256 and putting it in base58 we get: BDaofyahyEpS7E9fCaoFkbMitFFv8WGToys1gBRrt9Ts

We could now ask: Do Bitcoiners believe in BDaofyahyEpS7E9fCaoFkbMitFFv8WGToys1gBRrt9Ts?

It sounds bizarre and neutral. The term "neoliberal" doesn't sound neutral. It sounds negative (by design).

Tschüs!

Guten Tag,



a good observation.  I pointed out elsewhere that the site the quote came from might be described as Chomskian marxist.




a good book: "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change" by Jonah Goldberg



a lot of free market ideas in America can be traced to the region of Germany(which had different political boundaries at the time).  Here we have the 'Austrian Economics' school, Murray Rothbard being one of it's proponents.  The history here gets fairly complex but to summarize, Roosevelt who brought The New Deal(early American Socialism) was also the president who fought Hitler.




The current term noeliberalism refers to political movements that want to break down national sovereignty, freely trade and commodify natural resources, labor, and such.  In that sense they are closely quartered with anarchists(that much is obvious to anyone who reads this board).  Marxism does admittedly serve a scholar well in these cases because he describes this sort of activity perfectly, whereas the 'libertarian' types view all the negatives as temporary collateral costs on the journey to Ayn Randian Utopia(which never arrives, sounds like Marxism).  "Neoliberalism" is often used in a perjorative sense, but also it is a good description of this political outlook and is a good signifier for further research.  These aren't new ideas and 'thought leaders' like Voorhees try to present them as though they are new and novel.  The cryptokiddies gush with excitement at the thought that they won't have to answer to 'the man' anymore.  They may have to answer to Erik Voorhees though.

Grüß, -bm

Pierre Rochard of the Satoshi Nakamoto institute suggested they are a Bitcoin 2.0 pumper.

I'm curious if there is evidence of supposed "neoliberals" calling themselves "neoliberals" or if this is a term primarily used by the opponents of alleged "neoliberals."

In Germany, I've only heard the term applied (always negatively) to the FDP, the sort of mainstream "liberal"/"libertarian" party. The FDP is quite hated right now, but I attribute this to some oddities in German thinking. Germans seem to think the opposite of socialism is...national socialism. Since "neoliberals" aren't socialists, they are, by some skewed thinking, somewhere down the road to national socialism. It's quite odd. My solution is to not take people who think this way very seriously.

I generally get the feeling when people apply a "neo" prefix to something they don't like (e.g., "neoconservative" or "neoliberal"), it's meant to suggest "neonazi" without saying it. It's a kind of neogodwinism.

In response to the question "Are Bitcoiners Neoliberals?" I decided to do some quick reading.

A quick scan of the Wikipedia page on neoliberalism says the term was coined by a German, Alexander Rüstow, in 1938. It was to distinguish them from "classical liberalism" (as advocated by von Mises and Hayek) because neoliberals advocated state intervention. In fact, Rüstow is considered one of the fathers of the "Social Market Economy" (again, according to Wikipedia, so research primary sources if you want more reliable information). The "Social Market Economy" doesn't sound anything like what the allegedly "neoliberal" bitcoiners advocate.

The Wikipedia page for "neoliberalism" also says this: "According to Boas and Gans-Morse the term neoliberalism is nowadays mainly used by critics as a pejorative term."

Without looking into it further, I would conclude two things:

1. Using the term in its original historical sense, the bitcoiners to which some of you are referring are not "neoliberals" because they don't advocate state intervention in economic affairs. They could possibly be called "classical liberals."

2. Using the term in its modern, pejorative sense, the bitcoiners to which some of you are referring are "neoliberals" because you want to insult them.

I often thought the same, when I am listening to LTB. Sometimes I am not paying much attention, when Stephanie is talking.

Btw. I'd describe my self as a socialist.

and what country do you live in?

I don't think anyone's proposing that, but I do think they are proposing that a justice system established only based on force from the majority will not be moral.


How many years do I have to go before I start seeing that?  I don't think I know any hardened criminals, and I don't think I'm doing anything immoral.  I don't even use the drugs I advocate legalizing, unless you count sudafed.

The simple fact is that this group(perhaps several groups) operate under some vague ethos referred to by different names(libertarianism, cryptoanarchy).  It quickly devolves into extortion, harassment, death threats, etc.  You can't do business without a justice system.  What these people are is a mafia.  They will quickly find themselves surrounded by hardened criminals and doing things that are strictly immoral, where they may have started far more innocently.  I think Ross Ulbricht set the mold here.

This very same group you delineate is calling Ross a hero.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkRhBOZSw38

To me Panama doesn't really sound so glorious.  Maybe you get a bigger house and lots of money- but I'll take my little house and a simpler life in America any day.

Boy, if only that were true.  Unfortunately we are forced to live like everybody else, subject to the winner take all system that you prop up.

where have I seen that before?

Yes, anyone with any agenda can use Bitcoin.  what I am talking about are the people like Erik Vorhees, Roger Ver, Charlie Shrem, Stephanie Murphy, etc. who latched onto Bitcoin as way of promoting their agenda.  They often misrepresent Bitcoin when it fits their agenda because they are not rally promoting Bitcoin.  They think that their agenda is going to be "proven" if Bitcoin is successful. 

Take a look at that Bitcoin Bounty Hunter site.  The funniest part is posting "court documents" of the Bitcoinia lawsuit which consists of just a complaint.  It says Roger Ver, Jesse Powell, Jed McCaleb etc. are suing Amir Taaki, etc. for "breach of contract."  But if you read the complaint you can see NONE of the people suing have a copy of the contract but they claim if you get ahold of Amir he has a copy and that will prove their case.  So now he puts out a "bounty" because law enforcement is not doing their job.  How ridiculous can this get?  Who in their right mind would use financial services run by any of these people?

Bitcoin is the technology and users have many different political views. Do only marxist have cars? no.
The users of bitcoin have neoliberals, socialist, marxist, anarchist and even statist views.
See: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-changing-my-ideology-from-socialism-to-libertarianism-what-about-you-723537

These are kind of stupid replies you get from the pseudo-libertarians.  You get some sound byte or meme and they act like they just trumped the whole discussion.  a "pseudo-libertarian" is someone who makes some kind of simplistic statement without much research or thought.  They only interact with other people like themselves so they sit around reinforcing each other with flawed and unrealistic ideas.  when they write about Bitcoin they start using political terms like "Libertarian," "state", and "leviathan."  No normal person describes Bitcoin that way unless they are using it to pursue some agenda. 

The people who unconditionally support Ross Ulbricht is an example.  If he really did what he is accused of then most people want him in jail.  I certainly don't want some nut job going around ordering murders.  If was a false prosecution then I want the prosecutors in jail.  What is really sad is that his Mother is upset and you have Roger Ver coming in and "donating" money for the legal defense fund.  Then he uses her in videos and blogs to try to promote his agenda.  You also have these "Bitcoins Not Bombs" people who used homeless people as billboards for their cause.  Nobody listens to them so they use homeless people.

Take another guy, Charlie Shrem.  he thinks all copyrights should be eliminated because it is a "Tool of the State."  Mr. anarchy lived with his parents and then got lucky with Bitcoin.  Maybe if he would try to earn a living as a musician for 10 years maybe he would understand what it is about.  But he doesn't take the time to understand the real world, he cries that nobody understands him except his Bitcoin friends.   

I certainly don't hate Libertarians.  I used to go to meetings at CATO institute when I lived in Washington, DC.  I also work with the NJ Libertarian's party on their Open Government Project.  So I like many normal Libertarians and people who fight for open government.  The guy who runs that project files lawsuits to gain access to government records.  He doesn't go around making a bunch of hyperbolic comments and meme's or attaching himself to a technology in order to promote himself.

I think a lot of bitcoiners have at least some liberalism in their blood, for sure the very early adopters. The ones that are adopting now may just be adopting because they like the technology, etc. But, Neoliberals? good question.

Because people should have the freedom to make whatever private arrangements they want.

The theory is that ending the power to tax and the power to inflate the money supply will greatly curtail the government's ability to wage war.

I'd like to end the power to tax - people who believe in a particular battle should fund it with their own resources, rather than picking their neighbor's pockets.  It would have been great if, in 2002, an invasion of Iraq had to be paid for by the people who were convinced of the need, rather than by them plus everybody who disagreed.

Out of curiosity, what makes them "pseudo" libertarians?  Is that different from regular libertarians?

Who uses the term?

[[citation needed]]

If you want to hear the difference between a reasonable person and a "Bitcoin Wing Nut" listen to Preston Byrne and Stephanie on Let's Talk Bitcoin

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-137-eye-of-the-beholder

He makes perfect sense and then look at all the comments of the story.  They claim he is a State lover, not  libertarian, and on and on.  All he did was describe reality (and I usually can't stand lawyers).  I could not find one valid objection to what he said or any explanation as to why he would be wrong for the position he is in. 

All the regulations have to do with interfacing Bitcoin with the legacy system that these people say they want eliminated so why should they care?  The proposed regs are for people that still want to use banks.  Not that I agree with the proposed regs but that is what they are. 
 

Replacing the USD is a bit much.  It will put pressure on current systems and it might collapse Western Union but collapsing national currencies is not going to happen anytime soon.  The Internet put pressure on politicians in ways that have never been done before but it still isn't stopping their shenanigans the way people thought it would.  I remember the protest where the web site owners turned the screens black and the people thought everyone would jump.  The reality was it took 20 or 30 minutes to explain the whole thing to a Washington Bureaucrat and they would just shrug their shoulders.

The real wacky stuff comes from the people who say it will end wars.  The theory being the whole world will switch to Bitcoin and it will somehow prevent governments from spending money on war (I guess they can't use the Dark Wallet?).  The first time I heard the whole thing was that Free State Radio who broadcast parts of the first big Foundation conference.  They played commercials claiming that all government employees were murderers.  That means janitors, social security workers, astronauts, etc. are all murders.  They also talk about 'government" as if is one thing all coordinated.  They played an excerpt from the Onion on the show and I could not tell the difference between the Onion stuff and the stuff they claimed to be serious.  One person who comes from this group often claims on podcasts that Bitcoin is increasing "exponentially" and that there is this "huge" Bitcoin economy.  The real reason is that almost nobody listens to their stuff so they have to latch onto a technology and claim that people who use it agree with them.