The nature of Bitcoin does not fit Libertarianism; it *does* fit Max Stirner tho

[herzmeister]

Libertarianism assumes a system of property rights. That means there have to be institutions (minimal state or other forms of mediation) that would provide some legal backing for the concept of property, so that when something is stolen from you, things could be resolved, or you can be compensated and the thief can be penalized.

But when using Bitcoin, your wallet does not have this legal form of protection (and it's debatable if it ever will). If it gets stolen from you, bad luck, you won't get it back.

However, let's look at how individualist anarchist Max Stirner, and how he sees the concept of property:

"Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property."

Exactly! You gotta know how to protect your wallet and take necessary measures all by yourself to defend it. 

[1715356853]

1715356853

[1715356853]

1715356853

[1715356853]

1715356853

[1715356853]

1715356853

[myrkul]

Your wallet is data (it's even got a .dat extension) and as such is not protected by property rights. Your harddrive (or other storage medium) is physical property, and it's that which is protected under property rights, including against trespass.

[herzmeister]

So something has to be physical to be valid enough property for you?

Gold is better than Bitcoin after all, I knew it.  :·>

Anyway, the medium of storage is the least interesting thing to examine in this discourse, imho.

[myrkul]

So something has to be physical to be valid enough property for you?

The key element of "property" is excludability. If someone randomly generates the same private key as you, you can't make them stop using it. If someone randomly walks into your house, you can kick them out.

[Anon136]

That means there have to be institutions (minimal state or other forms of mediation) that would provide some legal backing for the concept of property

this is false, social customs can also provide property systems. a good example is here in the united states kids will "call shotgun" inorder to gain a property right over the front seat of a car, this property rule works very well at mitigating conflict and requires no institutions. It is purely based on custom and social norms, I've never heard of a parent needing to "enforce" the "calling shotgun" property rule.

of course im not claiming that we shouldnt have dispute resolution organizations in the real world we would certainly need them. The point is just that it is technically possible to have property systems with out enforcement which is important because you would have a regression problem otherwise. (need property in order to have something to bargain with in order to hire rights enforcement but cant have property with out rights enforcement)

[myrkul]

That means there have to be institutions (minimal state or other forms of mediation) that would provide some legal backing for the concept of property

this is false, social customs can also provide property systems. a good example is here in the united states kids will "call shotgun" inorder to gain a property right over the front seat of a car, this property rule works very well at mitigating conflict and requires no institutions. It is purely based on custom and social norms, I've never heard of a parent needing to "enforce" the "calling shotgun" property rule.

I have. It basically amounts to saying, "Now, Geoffrey, Tommy called shotgun. You can ride in the front seat on the way home," though.

Essentially, mediation.

[Anon136]

That means there have to be institutions (minimal state or other forms of mediation) that would provide some legal backing for the concept of property

this is false, social customs can also provide property systems. a good example is here in the united states kids will "call shotgun" inorder to gain a property right over the front seat of a car, this property rule works very well at mitigating conflict and requires no institutions. It is purely based on custom and social norms, I've never heard of a parent needing to "enforce" the "calling shotgun" property rule.

I have. It basically amounts to saying, "Now, Geoffrey, Tommy called shotgun. You can ride in the front seat on the way home," though.

Essentially, mediation.

still not enforcement =) and yea im sure some bad kids somewhere needed legit enforcement but me and my friends never did, that's the point.

[herzmeister]

I guess this little example would be the "Whoever knows how to take" part and be well compatible with Stirner-ianism, no worries. 

The problem with such simple examples is about the scale I think. How would "call shotgun" possibly scale up? Either it doesn't, then we remain in Stirner's realm, or it does scale up, and we get a much more complex system of mediation, for example libertarianism, where it would still be hard to find someone to ensure legal protection for your Bitcoin wallet. Or do you guys see legal protection for Bitcoin wallets evolving "out of customs"?

[myrkul]

How would "call shotgun" possibly scale up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

[herzmeister]

If someone randomly generates the same private key as you, you can't make them stop using it. If someone randomly walks into your house, you can kick them out.

Bitcoin is not designed in a way that someone can "generate" the someone's private key. If someone has your private keys, they most probably have "randomly walked into your computer" as well.

Or, you acted with neglect and left your wallet in the open somewhere, but again that can happen all the same with physical belongings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

or it does scale up, and we get a much more complex system of mediation, for example libertarianism, where it would still be hard to find someone to ensure legal protection for your Bitcoin wallet. Or do you guys see legal protection for Bitcoin wallets evolving "out of customs"?

[myrkul]

If someone randomly generates the same private key as you, you can't make them stop using it. If someone randomly walks into your house, you can kick them out.

Bitcoin is not designed in a way that someone can "generate" the someone's private key. If someone has your private keys, they most probably have "randomly walked into your computer" as well.

Or, you acted with neglect and left your wallet in the open somewhere, but again that can happen all the same with physical belongings.

You need to learn the difference between "highly improbable" and "impossible." A private key collision is quite possible, just not very likely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

or it does scale up, and we get a much more complex system of mediation, for example libertarianism, where it would still be hard to find someone to ensure legal protection for your Bitcoin wallet. Or do you guys see legal protection for Bitcoin wallets evolving "out of customs"?

There's no need. As you point out, it's much more likely that if someone has your private key without your permission, they committed trespass to get it.

[Anon136]

ya i tried to clarify on this point, i said that some amount of enforcement would be necessary in the real world in larger systems.

i was just correcting a very specific statement that was technically incorrect. It is incorrect to say that property can not exist with out enforcement. Imagine you and i are stranded on an island and we agree that the east side belongs to you and the west side belongs to me, we could in theory just respect that arrangement with out either party needing to get physical.

[herzmeister]

You need to learn the difference between "highly improbable" and "impossible." A private key collision is quite possible, just not very likely.

It is also possible, just not very likely, that due to quantum fluctuations I suddenly appear in your room, or that the gold bar in your safe disappears and reappears in my room (and no, this comparison isn't even a stretch, according to this infographics. The underlying "laws of the universe" are just the same).

There's no need. As you point out, it's much more likely that if someone has your private key without your permission, they committed trespass to get it.

I was thinking about someone hacking into someone's machine over the internet. Does that also qualify enough as trespassing for you? Fine then, only electrons involved either.

ya i tried to clarify on this point, i said that some amount of enforcement would be necessary in the real world in larger systems.

i was just correcting a very specific statement that was technically incorrect. It is incorrect to say that property can not exist with out enforcement. Imagine you and i are stranded on an island and we agree that the east side belongs to you and the west side belongs to me, we could in theory just respect that arrangement with out either party needing to get physical.

I never used the word "enforcement" in this thread. But what indeed I did was to assume a "real world in larger systems", i.e. one that is large enough for something like Bitcoin to exist.

And about our island, guess we'll eventually find out it belongs to Her Majesty the Queen of England already. 

[Anon136]

"That means there have to be institutions (minimal state or other forms of mediation) that would provide some legal backing for the concept of property"

I took the phrase "legal backing" to be a euphemism for enforcement. i apologize if i misunderstood. Specifically what did you mean by this statement?

i suppose saying who ever calls shotgun gets the front seat is a law, and so the front seat property rules do have a legal backing. if you meant it like that than i digress.

[myrkul]

You need to learn the difference between "highly improbable" and "impossible." A private key collision is quite possible, just not very likely.

It is also possible, just not very likely, that due to quantum fluctuations I suddenly appear in your room, or that the gold bar in your safe disappears and reappears in my room (and no, this comparison isn't even a stretch, according to this infographics. The underlying "laws of the universe" are just the same).

And in that event, it is entirely within my rights to kick you out of my house, or take back my gold bar. I can exclude you from the use of my property, whereas I cannot exclude you from the use of the randomly generated private key.

There's no need. As you point out, it's much more likely that if someone has your private key without your permission, they committed trespass to get it.

I was thinking about someone hacking into someone's machine over the internet. Does that also qualify enough as trespassing for you? Fine then, only electrons involved either.

Yes, digital trespass is well established in case law.

[Vandroiy]

I see the difference from Libertarianism to the more anarchistic forms in the willingness to do a compromise toward law enforcement if no other solution seems feasible.

A bitcoin wallet can be protected with due diligence at limited cost, but catching a thief is expensive. Protecting your house against outside attacks is different; someone with a tank platoon can take control of it on a whim because he happens to be passing by. If you use the Max Stirner stance from the OP on houses, what keeps your next warlord from just taking it?

I'd say the views of Libertarians on Bitcoins happen to not conflict with the view of anarchists much. I guess most people would agree that a Bitcoin thief that happens to be found should be punished. But that is unlikely to happen, so whether or not property rights are applicable isn't very important to the users.

[herzmeister]

I took the phrase "legal backing" to be a euphemism for enforcement. i apologize if i misunderstood. Specifically what did you mean by this statement?

Let's just say some kind of legal framework in whatever form. There are several variations out there afaik, but I mean approaches in general that people like Hoppe, Tom Woods or Walter Block describe and that seem to be necessary to protect property. Libertarians take the concept of property granted somewhat as said, but this concept is debatable as there are other (more collectivist) points of view out there, but let's keep that discussion out of this thread.

And in that event, it is entirely within my rights to kick you out of my house, or take back my gold bar. I can exclude you from the use of my property, whereas I cannot exclude you from the use of the randomly generated private key.

Ok, the "but you can copy digital stuff" argument. However, let's assume private keys would never be "randomly generated", as laid out before (laws of the universe etc), but rather in almost all cases would be taken by force or by trespassing, where it plays no role whether it's digital or physical trespassing. If you sneak in and steal jewelry out of my drawer, I might or might not have a chance to catch you red-handed. Same with Bitcoin wallets really. I can also prevent you from spending my bitcoins if I catch you in time. How, you ask? Well I can tell you but that means I'd have to kill you. :·>

A bitcoin wallet can be protected with due diligence at limited cost, but catching a thief is expensive.

The cost argument is a good one and might be a good explanation of why Bitcoin rather fits Stirner's philosophy. A question left to ask might be if it would always remain that way, or if there'll be scaling up libertarian cyber police brigades one day. 

Protecting your house against outside attacks is different; someone with a tank platoon can take control of it on a whim because he happens to be passing by. If you use the Max Stirner stance from the OP on houses, what keeps your next warlord from just taking it?

That sounds a bit like the Mad Max argument against anarchism. I haven't looked deep enough into Stirner's philosophies yet to figure out what his stance on this would be. However, the power of the might and concentration of power in any form (be it sheer force, capital, or social engineering) is a threat to any society and might be the very reason why we still can't have anarchism in any shape or form.

[myrkul]

And in that event, it is entirely within my rights to kick you out of my house, or take back my gold bar. I can exclude you from the use of my property, whereas I cannot exclude you from the use of the randomly generated private key.

Ok, the "but you can copy digital stuff" argument. However, let's assume private keys would never be "randomly generated", as laid out before (laws of the universe etc), but rather in almost all cases would be taken by force or by trespassing, where it plays no role whether it's digital or physical trespassing. If you sneak in and steal jewelry out of my drawer, I might or might not have a chance to catch you red-handed. Same with Bitcoin wallets really. I can also prevent you from spending my bitcoins if I catch you in time. How, you ask? Well I can tell you but that means I'd have to kill you. :·>

"Spending" it first, to a new address is a simple matter, and what I would do in that situation. But the hacker has still committed trespass, perhaps even a form of "breaking and entering," and both of those are offenses which can have consequences attached to them.