Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money

[bitfreak!]

Dmytri is right about this much: Bitcoin will never replace Government fiat money completely... at least not in powerful western nations any time soon. The reason why has nothing to do with the inability of the Government to tax a currency like bitcoin. The reason is because the system is so heavily dependent on endless streams of debt-based fiat money. They will never recognize a currency like bitcoin as an official financial tool for paying public debt and they will never allow us to pay taxes or fines in anything other than their fiat Government currency. Well certainly not in our life times. Bitcoin will simply fill it's own niche in the currency market, all other Government currencies will still exist along side bitcoin... they each serve a purpose and have different properties, the Government will always use a currency with properties they desire. And they've spent a lot of time crafting this absurdly mind-boggling debt based system made of unicorns and rainbows.

[Rudd-O]

Government will (in the end) tax your house, your land, your car etc. and will demand BTC. You cannot hide physical property too much and they will tax it. For bitcoins!   

This theft might or might not happen in the future, but at least Bitcoin will have prevented the biggest heist of all: inflation.  ;-)  In my book, that's progress.

[evoorhees]

Best discussion on Bitcoin and money in forever - this is getting to the heart not of whether Bitcoin is good or bad, but of how we value the boundary between private and public goods in the next, networked century. I applaud Dmytri for bringing up the issue, and for highlighting the challenges that both Bitcoin *and* the state face.

My own opinion is that the Bitcoin crowd has a long way to go, and that Dmytri is "right". To be on the fence about it, I want Bitcoin to succeed in order to improve the effectiveness of both individuals *and* common action. Both can do better, and indeed *have* to if we're going to face up to an ever-changing, fucked up world.

Right now, Bitcoin is still "at risk" IMHO. It has promise. But it's also naive. It is an experiment that could go either way. But the challenge is not to rebel against existing hierarchies, nor to replace them.

The challenge is to re-build them. Better.

Rebuild reputation models. Rebuild tax models. Rebuild payment models. Rebuild banks and insurance models. Rebuild user interfaces. Rebuild local currencies.

Redefine "fiat".

Some excellent points. I constantly find myself at loggerheads with Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists on this forum who seem to have some kind of utopian vision but usually no strategy whatsoever to achieve their aims. "Step 1, destroy existing society. Step 2, deliriously hope that it magically rebuilds all by itself in the direction that I want" is not a viable strategy. The key is to build, not destroy. Everyone should just relax because old things eventually crumble on their own accord.

Utopian vision? I have nothing of the sort. Bitcoin doesn't make the world perfect, and a libertarian world in which freedom is respected would not be a perfect world either.

And there is a very good strategy to achieve "our aims" (though you've already made a mistake in thinking all libertarians have the same aims). My strategy is this: build Bitcoin. I'm not destroying anything, I'm building. I'm building an alternative to the decrepit system we now use.

And nobody is hoping that anything "magically rebuilds." Rather, some of us understand that it is man's natural tendency to build, and that the extent to which coercive elements of society are removed is the extent to which man can best build and create. It's not magic, it's nature.

What IS wishful thinking is the Statists who, for some reason, think that a group of men can plan the economic relationships of millions of people. What IS wishful thinking is the Statists who believe the unending printing of money can actually create real wealth.

The libertarians are not the ones destroying anything. They are not the ones bombing, building machines of war and destruction, and crushing the spirits of millions of otherwise creative people with regulations and fallacious dogma. Those who are involved in Bitcoin are trying to build something crucially important. There is very much a strategy to it, and no magic is involved. Markets work because of the natural tendencies of humans, and we're demonstrating this every day we continue forward.

[TheButterZone]

Yep. It's right in the language. Libertarian=liberty. Government=govern (manipulate, control, restrain).

[Rudd-O]

Yep. It's right in the language. Libertarian=liberty. Government=govern (manipulate, control, restrain).

Well said.  This very, very obvious point is often missed.

[justusranvier]

My take on AnCap: "governments are bad because they gain and maintain their power by force. Therefore (and this is where it gets murky), they ought to be somehow^(strategy?) removed from power/starved of taxes/etc^{(common goals?)}. Afterwards, things will eventually settle down and market forces will enable everything that had been hitherto provided by the State (a few big question marks remain for things like a justice system). As long as everyone somehow^(how?) abides by the non-coercion principle, there won't be any cancerous government-like entity trying to fill the "top dog" niche."

There is no plan, nor any need for one.

When people stop believing that threatening other humans with violence is a valid way of solving social problems the State will end, just like how slavery ended when people stopped believing it was right to own other humans. When the State ends, people will find alternate ways to solve their problems, just like they found alternatives to slave labor. It's impossible to predict the precise form those alternative solutions will take, because making that prediction is equivalent to solving the economic calculation problem.

[meowmeowbrowncow]

a) ruthless, tribal governments (organically arise)
b) centralized, highly organized governments

take your pick.  People will never be civil enough to sustain ancap.

[justusranvier]

People will never be civil enough to sustain ancap.

Certainly as long as the world if full of dysfunctional, exploitive families it will be difficult for people to stop conflating their childhood experiences with human nature.

[Rudd-O]

People will never be civil enough to sustain ancap.

I concede that maybe you won't be civil enough.  I, my loved ones, and pretty much everyone I interact with on a daily basis, will be, because we are civil already, and we are civil not because but despite threats.  We civil human beings outnumber people like, perhaps, you, probably 25 to 1.

My observation to you: if you fear death in such a world order without violent authorities, perhaps you would like to learn to be civil before it takes place?  Since not being civil will certainly cost you your life in ancap society, it pays off to learn civility.

[ryann]

And after all that, Dmytri is still correct. If you think bitcoin is going to replace govt currencies then you are so far out to left field you dont need to reply. This place is just like Apple forums. Fanboys. You do raise some good points though.

Typically an assertion like that is followed by an argument.  WHY do you think Bitcoin can't replace government currencies?

If you arent taxed how do you think all those highways and roads and thousands of other things are paid for? There is no centralization we see scams all the time and there is nothing you can do about it. Your computer gets hacked you are done. Dotn care how many backs up you have it takes a matter of seconds to empty your wallet once its broken in to and you will not be reimbursed by anyone. I can go on and on. Mostly the arguments why bitcoin is superior are just lousy points aka quick transaction times and low fees, yawn.

[lebing]

Generally speaking I completely agree with the conclusion of your response, but there is one point you make which is just flat out wrong:

"The origin of money is barter. In fact, money derives directly and unavoidably from barter."

Nowhere in recorded history has money ever derived from barter. It has always derived from credit or the need for mobilization of armies. http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867

[MoonShadow]

Generally speaking I completely agree with the conclusion of your response, but there is one point you make which is just flat out wrong:

"The origin of money is barter. In fact, money derives directly and unavoidably from barter."

Nowhere in recorded history has money ever derived from barter. It has always derived from credit or the need for mobilization of armies. http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867

<cough> No sorry.  Money is the most liquid good in a barter economy, and arises naturally.  And it does so, so quickly that there is no recorded example of a stable barter economy; at least not in the sense that some form of commodity didn't function as the monetary "change" in a barter transaction.  There are plenty of examples of societies that evolved money well before any need to raise or mobilize an army, even before the invention of writing in order to record same.

[lebing]

Generally speaking I completely agree with the conclusion of your response, but there is one point you make which is just flat out wrong:

"The origin of money is barter. In fact, money derives directly and unavoidably from barter."

Nowhere in recorded history has money ever derived from barter. It has always derived from credit or the need for mobilization of armies. http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867

<cough> No sorry.  Money is the most liquid good in a barter economy, and arises naturally.  And it does so, so quickly that there is no recorded example of a stable barter economy; at least not in the sense that some form of commodity didn't function as the monetary "change" in a barter transaction.  There are plenty of examples of societies that evolved money well before any need to raise or mobilize an army, even before the invention of writing in order to record same.

Don't argue with me, argue with David Graeber and history.

[lebing]

Nonsense.  Should I permit a toddler to stick his hand into the blue light on the top of the stove, so that he remembers not to do it again, or would the much less permanent harm that a spanking causes him help his young (and not very rational) mind to remember to leave the blue light alone?  Sure, I can reason with an eight year old, and teach them a safe way to cross the street, but if a three year old is inclined to run away at any opprotunity, not using the non-permanent pain of a spanking in order to instill a healthy fear of vehicular traffic is the parental failure.

You do realize what you are actually teaching your child (using this example) is not to fear exploration for fear of harm to himself, but fear exploration for fear of harm from his parent? If the point is to make them remember this occurrence, what do you think will happen when they get old enough to leave the nest?

[MoonShadow]

Generally speaking I completely agree with the conclusion of your response, but there is one point you make which is just flat out wrong:

"The origin of money is barter. In fact, money derives directly and unavoidably from barter."

Nowhere in recorded history has money ever derived from barter. It has always derived from credit or the need for mobilization of armies. http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867

<cough> No sorry.  Money is the most liquid good in a barter economy, and arises naturally.  And it does so, so quickly that there is no recorded example of a stable barter economy; at least not in the sense that some form of commodity didn't function as the monetary "change" in a barter transaction.  There are plenty of examples of societies that evolved money well before any need to raise or mobilize an army, even before the invention of writing in order to record same.

Don't argue with me, argue with David Graeber and history.

I don't have to do either.  history is already on my side, just not in Graeber's mind.  You made this reference, it's up to you to argue that it's correct.  I don't personally care what you believe, but to just say "Graeber says this" is committing the 'appeal to authority' falacy using someone I do't even view as a an authority on the matter.

[MoonShadow]

Don't waste your time on that guy.

I concur.  Don't waste your time on that guy.

[lebing]

I don't mind that you deleted the posts - I'll take that as acknowledgement rather than a clear abuse of power.

[MoonShadow]

I don't mind that you deleted the posts - I'll take that as acknowledgement rather than a clear abuse of power.

Take it how you like, but I've not deleted anything.

EDIT: Well, I have now.

[lebing]

Generally speaking I completely agree with the conclusion of your response, but there is one point you make which is just flat out wrong:

"The origin of money is barter. In fact, money derives directly and unavoidably from barter."

Nowhere in recorded history has money ever derived from barter. It has always derived from credit or the need for mobilization of armies. http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867

<cough> No sorry.  Money is the most liquid good in a barter economy, and arises naturally.  And it does so, so quickly that there is no recorded example of a stable barter economy; at least not in the sense that some form of commodity didn't function as the monetary "change" in a barter transaction.  There are plenty of examples of societies that evolved money well before any need to raise or mobilize an army, even before the invention of writing in order to record same.

Don't argue with me, argue with David Graeber and history.

I don't have to do either.  history is already on my side, just not in Graeber's mind.  You made this reference, it's up to you to argue that it's correct.  I don't personally care what you believe, but to just say "Graeber says this" is committing the 'appeal to authority' falacy using someone I do't even view as a an authority on the matter.

For clarification - I said credit OR the mobilization of armies.

I suppose we will agree to disagree on this point in general. I simply do not agree that there has ever been such a thing as a "barter economy" nor that it has escalated from such a thing to a monetary economy. I, like graeber choose to use physical evidence, rather than masturbatory intellectualism to fill in the blanks of history.

[Rudd-O]

Post edited for being in the wrong venue.

Try again in the split topic where this belongs.