In the first response you seem to validate money monopoly of early adopters because of some sort of "grand risk / effort" which is always laid bare on the soulful sleeves of those fortunate enough to luck into that position, but in the second response you state the governance of such monopolies are the core issue.
Do you believe capitalism can exist without regulation? I don't, and I see the government and management of the money as a natural outgrowth, aka, the laws behind posting "beware of scammer" blog lists.
The core understanding of libertarianism is that the government is a monopoly by force, and of force. It is the initiation of aggression that is the issue here.
One could of course have a natural monopoly in a free market, but this isn't the same as hiring people with guns to enforce position in the market against all future and current competitors.
With governments, they do not provide the rule of laws, but unpredictability.
Here, we have a protocol that enforce a kind of rule of law. Violence on the internet is almost impossible by the virtue of actors being distributed far away, and the protocol provide a ruleset that is very clear in how it operate and completely predictable in its outcome. (21 million bitcoin, irreversible transactions, and so on)
That is not simply possible with a democratic legislative process that care about everything in your life and wish to dictate rules on things that they don't know anything about, or their mind is tied to the fickle emotions of democracy.
Show Posts
