Libertarians -- where are they now?

[GazetaBitcoin]

Therefore, I ask: Libertarians -- where are they now? Crypto-anarchists -- where are they now? Where are you now?

Well, I'm still here (but not as active as I used to be), though I seem to have drifted more towards geolibertarianism/anarcho-mutualism

I feel proud to share same visions with such a respectful iconic figure as Foxpup!

Nobody even mentioned gender issues in this thread, but of course no conservative can resist making an issue out of it where none exists.

Of course =)))

When Bitcoin's main use case is getting rich quick, and financial freedom is secondary at best, there's nothing surprising that ideology is very low in the list of priorities of Bitcoin community. And in this context it's somewhat ironic, because libertarianism is a pure form of capitalism, and this is what capitalism looks like on practice - people care about money first. People don't mind sacrificing privacy and control over their funds when they use centralized exchanges, because it allows them to make money more conveniently and cheaper. It seems like libertarianism is at odds with itself.

Yes, but the highlighted part is also what will doom most of those acting like this. Prometheus gave fire to people, to warm their houses and prepare food; people used it to fire up places and each other's homes. Satoshi gave Bitcoin to people for offering them a chance to eliminate governs, banks and middle men; people invented centralized exchanges and, furthermore, also associated their bank accounts with the exchanges, to make sure (sarcastically speaking) that the long arms of the State will 100% catch them... For this reason I wrote, a while ago, 12 years later and people still don't know to use Bitcoin nor what it's good for.

I still think that those same libertarians who made up a large part of the bitcoin "crowd" are still around, they just perhaps don't have the same loud voice they had before being that there's so many more people involved now.

I also feel like all libertarians were overcrowded, in time, by people like this:



And it's very sad...

Interesting article

Thank you!

I've reached my 50-Merit limit for your posts unfortunately, so don't worry, I'll come back here later.  

Same here No worry.

Bitcoin has so many aspects and yes, we could "label" some of these aspects but we won’t get a clear picture what Bitcoin, as a whole, really is:

-   Libertarian = it’s your own money, you only need to remember 12 words
-   Progressive = a completely new technology
-   Conservative = Bitcoin will help to conserve your monetary value (hard money, capped at 21M coins)
-   Anarchist = Bitcoin is anti-dictatorship money
-   Constitutionalist = Code is law!
-   Transparent = everyone can verify if a transaction happened, coins were moved etc.
-   Private = people can take some steps to protect privacy
-   Democratic = run your own node and participate in the Bitcoin network

Big thumb up for this elaborated description.

And that’s where I’ve questioned how to turn Libertarian theories into reality because always someone like Bezos, Thiel or Musk will come and abuse a vacuum of power. [...]

Some Libertarian theories explicitly try to remove any rules but when there are no rules (vacuum), this vacuum will be filled by those who have or will quickly accumulate power (money). [...]

It’s not a secret that when there are no rules, chaos will arise. Just imagine the forum where no DT would be active, no rules would be in place and spam piling up because it’s not getting deleted.
Some players filling this vaccum might be nice, get powerful but don’t do many harmful things. Some other players filling the vaccum might be the opposite and they will abuse any vaccum for their profit. And these evil players will crush everyone, nobody could stop them at one point.

I can’t see in regard of Libertarian visions any concept of how the end game could suceed.

Now all you said above, is a great debate! I will try to explain also my point of view here.

Let's start with the chaos part. You say that "when there are no rules, chaos will arise". However, my dear 1miau, let's first remember what chaos is. And the simplest definition of chaos is that it represents "the perfect disorder". It's a disorder so well organized that you can see an order inside it. Does that make any sense? So, if chaos is a perfectly ordered disorder, what is the order? It is the cause of disorder. For example, we can say that the Universe, in its continuous expansion, it's just a combination of progressive disorder. But this disorder, as it expands itself, creates new orders and each of these orders can be identified with the initial order. So even inside chaos, which is disorder in its pure form, order is created. Therefore why would it be so bad for chaos to arise? All disorders will lead to new orders, in the future...

Let's imagine an overcrowded shop before Christmas, where no employees are available to lead customers to the section they seek for buying whatever gifts they want to buy. Now let's imagine all those people storming the shop, like ants. What will happen? Eventually, all of them will find the needed section and the wanted gift and they will go then to the cashier, pay for it and go home. The shop, in this example, represents your chaos and, respectively, my idea Cypherpunks' and Austrian school economists' idea of a society without a state / anarchism / libertarianism. So what happens in the end, to those people which are not led by any employee (obviously, they represent the society without a govern)? Do they cease to exist? Do they not find the wanted gifts...? No, quite the opposite... They all manage to do what they want, by organizing themselves...

And, regarding the people which may abuse the vacuum of power... These things happen now, indeed. Your examples can not be denied. However, Tim May envisioned a long time ago (in 1988!) a solution for such abuses. He mainly referred to govern's abuses, but his proposal may be applied in this situation too. And his solution was a crypto-anarchy based on a web of trust and reputation. The idea was shared by other Cypherpunks as well. And it implies a trust network (web of trust) based on feedbacks (similar to our forum) and this trust would improve (or decrease) your reputation. What do you think would happen to Elon Musk if such a society would actually exist? Wouldn't it be full of negative feedbacks and excluded by most people from their web of trust? Do you think he would still have same success as he has today? Indeed, Tim May's idea, as many other great ideas from the past, is utopian. But so was Bitcoin too, before it was invented. There is nothing granting that such a society won't be possible in the future...

Most likely "Libertariansm" is an utopia itself and Bitcoin is what we need to understand, how to fix some flawed libertarian thoughts. Bitcoin is so powerful on so many layers and it will probably teach us to understand some flaws of Libertarianism and other aspects because Bitcoin is addressing the vaccum of power issue.

Yes, libertarianism, in its most pure form, it's an uptopia. It's a sort, if you want, of Shangri-La. Yet, for multiple decades, Bitcoin was also a dream of Cypherpunks, libertarians and crypto-anarchists. But it ultimately came through. It prevailed! But why were all those people behind him (and Satoshi's ancestors) so driven to create it? Sahotshi, Wei Dai, Nick Szabo, Adam Back, David Chaum... And the list can also go back even more, to Austrian school economists, such Murray Rothbard or Hayek or Mises... although they could not even think to something like Bitcoin, the ideas expressed in books like:

Conceived in liberty,
For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto,
Denationalization of Money,
A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II,
Theory of Money and Credit,
What Has Government Done to Our Money?,
The Case Against the Fed,
Society Without a State

have many things in common. They all advocated for private money; for anarchism; for liberty; for opening people's eyes that the old paradigm they've been fed for centuries -- that governs are necessary and without them we could not live anymore our daily lives -- is wrong!

Do you see the common points between those remarkable figures of history and Cypherpunks? Do you think this is only a coincidence...?

There’s a big difference between what Libertarian theories say and what Bitcoin says.

True. Yet their paths cross so much. They have many things in common.

[1715242261]

1715242261

[1715242261]

1715242261

[1715242261]

1715242261

[1715242261]

1715242261

[buwaytress]

Nice reads, can't say for sure as may never get the chance to read them, nor such an interest in that particular brand/ideology. I have a more "indigenous" leaning of liberty (where there is no concept of ownership even, at odds with Bitcoin or even money), but that's more from my birth and circumstance, and being a realist I know I can only become familiar with those ideas, not intimate, despite my origins.

They're all around, and while they might have been vibrant in the cypherpunk newsgroups, I wouldn't count on finding them here on this forum.

[BlackHatCoiner]

So what happens in the end, to those people which are not led by any employee (obviously, they represent the society without a govern)?

I'm not quite sure of your understanding of govern. Sure, the customers don't need an employee to lead them, or push them onto his suggestions; they know to walk around the shop, and they should have the freedom to do so... as long as they don't intervene into their nearby fellows. If you don't have governing, you can't effectively discourage someone from breaking the law likewise.

What do you think would happen to Elon Musk if such a society would actually exist? Wouldn't it be full of negative feedbacks and excluded by most people from their web of trust? Do you think he would still have same success as he has today?

That raises a very important issue. Should people's opinions on others affect their prosperity? Such society sounds utopian to me. Nobody would want reputation, because nobody who seeks to establish success is surrounded by people who like him. You know there's a saying that if you want everyone to like you, don't be a leader; sell ice cream.

[franky1]

there are two different things being said..
govern = a set of key actors setting rules and enforcing rules the masses have to comply with
consensus. a known popularity of best practices, accepted expectations agreed by the masses. a basic standard of rule agreed by the masses

even in a grocery store, there is expected acceptable practices to not just put food in your pocket and walk out. but instead to take it to the cashier and pay for it. which allows the "freedom" to not be chaperoned/governed by employees per visit

this does not mean there are not rules. but where the community understands a set of rules/morals and self governs

some view libertarianism as the outlaw/lawless society of no laws, no punishment, let people do as they please even if it inflicts harm, change on others... to me i dont see libertarian as this.
i also dont see libertarian as allowing representatives to make laws for us to auto-follow, where there is no election or vote
eg, saying devs can slide in protocol changes without consensus is "libertarian".. is wrong in my mind. i see that as authoritarian

my view is freedom as long as you dont inflict harm, change, loss on another. where the population on mass have a bare minimum set of rules they decide themselves to agree to , a basic etiquette of moral understanding when others are involved set by the whole community agreement. not by some master representation group above the community.
yes individuals, master groups are free to set proposals for rules/etiquette, but not enforce them against populations lack of agreement(abstinence)
eg barter between two individuals is liberty/freedom, they can agree on whatever value they want
expanding to more population a freemarket of mass individuals coming to an agreement of perceived value is freedom/value
but to say a custodian of users funds is free by 'libertarian right' to 'rig the price' or abscond with all population funds, is not liberty

[1miau]

Let's start with the chaos part. You say that "when there are no rules, chaos will arise". However, my dear 1miau, let's first remember what chaos is. And the simplest definition of chaos is that it represents "the perfect disorder". It's a disorder so well organized that you can see an order inside it. Does that make any sense? So, if chaos is a perfectly ordered disorder, what is the order? It is the cause of disorder. For example, we can say that the Universe, in its continuous expansion, it's just a combination of progressive disorder. But this disorder, as it expands itself, creates new orders and each of these orders can be identified with the initial order. So even inside chaos, which is disorder in its pure form, order is created. Therefore why would it be so bad for chaos to arise? All disorders will lead to new orders, in the future...

What our Universe looked like in the most early days is a very great analogy. From what science knows, it has been extremely chaotic. But could we have lived in such an environment? Very unlikely…
As most of the dust had settleted down, galaxies emerged, it still took a very long time until our solar system came into existance.

And after a long time, our planet finally got habitable. To reach that point, most of the chaos needed to be settled.
It’s similar to Bitcoin as a great example how to settle a space formerly known for chaos (or at least failed (but still important attempts or researches) like from Chaum) or we can also take our DT system to a lesser degree. It settled down chaos (scammers) and there’s a set of rules and these rules / DT1 members can be changed by the community if there’s consensus to do so. 

Let's imagine an overcrowded shop before Christmas, where no employees are available to lead customers to the section they seek for buying whatever gifts they want to buy. Now let's imagine all those people storming the shop, like ants. What will happen?

As someone living in a capitalist country, I believe we should arrange the shop like that, to make them buy the most expensive products and more than they wanted to buy.
It’s called product placement.
Just a joke, sorry. 

What do you think would happen to Elon Musk if such a society would actually exist? Wouldn't it be full of negative feedbacks and excluded by most people from their web of trust?

It's not unlikely that Elon Musk would end up as pirateat40 or be someone who's running 1xbit. 


Regarding governs / governing mechanisms:

As franky 1 has explained already very well, we should try to get an understanding of governs / governing mechanisms / government / governance and consensus.
I’m more used to it to understand "govern" as a verb ("to govern"). At least for our article, I’m referring to "governance" from lat gubernare, which can be applied to a nation state, a community, a sports club, a company, a protocol and so many more. Governance can be achieved in many ways and one important part of governance is to act accoring a consensus.
This consensus should be as fair as possible and involving everyone who’s affected by it. It’s not easy to do it and some people might consider authoritarian governances more efficient but efficient is not everything: It’s efficient vs. fair.

I’m in favor of a fair governance instead of an efficient one. Yes, an efficient one might have advantages but also disadvantages.
Bitcoin is efficient and fair, so it’s already a very special form of governance and I would of course agree to it to call it a fair governance.
Maybe I’m just too focussed on Bitcoin’s tech but that’s what so fascinating about Bitcoin. It’s a special form of governance itself.

To extend this a bit, maybe we can elaborate our current DT system. As you’ve explained, creating trust is essential here on Bitcointalk because (almost) everyone here is an anonymous actor. Scamming is quite easy because scammers can run away easily. So, we need to evaluate, who’s trustworthy to avoid getting scammed. Very early in Bitcointalk’s history, the community agreed to follow a member-based reputation system.
That worked well many years but it was very centralized because DT1 members were picked by theymos.
Some trolls compained that DT is just beneficial "for the elites of the forum" and that some DT members would abuse governance.
But still, DT has been very centralized and in 2019, theymos decided to improve DT by making changes, to make it more fair. Each Bitcointalk member could vote DT1 members in or out via their own trust list.
DT got much more decentralized which also enabled more scammers to get into DT because a vaccum of power always gets abused but overally, making DT more decentralized has been a success in my opinion because changes were evaluated diligently.

So, any opinions on what DT system you would favor?
-   DT before 2019 changes
-   DT after 2019 changes
I would go for a DT after 2019 changes because it’s more fair, more inclusive. More members can participate and be part of DT decisions.

So, yes, we should try analyze what’s a good (fair) governance and what’s a bad (closed) governance and we should try to support and improve the good (fair) governance. We should not oppose a governance itself because it will be replaced by someone powerful trying to seize any vacuum of power.
So, we need to make any system resistant against abuse itself and Bitcoin is achieving that, Bitcoin is censorship-resistant.
A similar issue will come up if we look at PoW vs. PoS. We can take Polkadot, for example, where dPoS (delegated PoS) is used. Polkadot’s inflation is 10% per year and these inflation coins will go to stakers, which are already rich and will make them even richer. In dPoS such rich stakers will be able to consolidate their power, which will lead to a massive centralization over time. Rich stakers will be able to abuse it. I'm sure we'll get a big discussion around it some time later, maybe in 2 - 5 years. 

So what happens in the end, to those people which are not led by any employee (obviously, they represent the society without a govern)?

I'm not quite sure of your understanding of govern. Sure, the customers don't need an employee to lead them, or push them onto his suggestions; they know to walk around the shop, and they should have the freedom to do so... as long as they don't intervene into their nearby fellows. If you don't have governing, you can't effectively discourage someone from breaking the law likewise.

Yeah, that's an important point.

[franky1]

A similar issue will come up if we look at PoW vs. PoS. We can take Polkadot, for example, where dPoS (delegated PoS) is used. Polkadot’s inflation is 10% per year and these inflation coins will go to stakers, which are already rich and will make them even richer. In dPoS such rich stakers will be able to consolidate their power, which will lead to a massive centralization over time. Rich stakers will be able to abuse it. I'm sure we'll get a big discussion around it some time later, maybe in 2 - 5 years.  

side note:
i would not say rich. i would say coin heavy
elitism begets more coin holding but in pos inflation systems those coins lose value (buys less breadloaves per year)

back to the topic:
some say that chaos is ordered. no its not
chaos is random.

let's first remember what chaos is. And the simplest definition of chaos is that it represents "the perfect disorder". It's a disorder so well organized that you can see an order inside it. Does that make any sense? So, if chaos is a perfectly ordered disorder, what is the order? It is the cause of disorder. For example, we can say that the Universe, in its continuous expansion, it's just a combination of progressive disorder. But this disorder, as it expands itself, creates new orders and each of these orders can be identified with the initial order. So even inside chaos, which is disorder in its pure form, order is created. Therefore why would it be so bad for chaos to arise? All disorders will lead to new orders, in the future...

chaos is where so many random things are happening that evolution only grows out of the randomness of events colliding to create more energy than predecessor thus survives longer.
its "survival of the majority/fittest". not "you are the chosen one"

out of all the random things of PoW, timestamp servers, contracts. no one could see bitcoin coming until boom, satoshi let it all unite into a interwoven system thats unique and never seen before it

chaos is not planned or foreseen or mutually agreed
it has to take a step away from chaos to bring in a bit of unity to bring features and people together

again i dont think liberty is wild west, outlaw, no repercussions, chaos.
liberty does have some bare moral rules that all would seem acceptable etiquette. where its self governed and judged by peers. rather then hierarchical governed and judged by representatives

[GazetaBitcoin]

this does not mean there are not rules. but where the community understands a set of rules/morals and self governs

some view libertarianism as the outlaw/lawless society of no laws, no punishment, let people do as they please even if it inflicts harm, change on others... to me i dont see libertarian as this. [...]

my view is freedom as long as you dont inflict harm, change, loss on another. where the population on mass have a bare minimum set of rules they decide themselves to agree to , a basic etiquette of moral understanding when others are involved set by the whole community agreement. not by some master representation group above the community.
yes individuals, master groups are free to set proposals for rules/etiquette, but not enforce them against populations lack of agreement(abstinence)
eg barter between two individuals is liberty/freedom, they can agree on whatever value they want
expanding to more population a freemarket of mass individuals coming to an agreement of perceived value is freedom/value
but to say a custodian of users funds is free by 'libertarian right' to 'rig the price' or abscond with all population funds, is not liberty

again i dont think liberty is wild west, outlaw, no repercussions, chaos.
liberty does have some bare moral rules that all would seem acceptable etiquette. where its self governed and judged by peers. rather then hierarchical governed and judged by representatives

That pretty much sums everything up. I was also referring to a liberty which did not involve any kind of violence.

It's not unlikely that Elon Musk would end up as pirateat40 or be someone who's running 1xbit.  

Yes, and that could be possible into an utopian web of trust, where a solid reputation system would be functional, right?

I’m in favor of a fair governance instead of an efficient one.

I understand your point of view; furthermore, I agree with it. But tell me this: how many times have you seen, in the past 5000 years, a fair governance...?

some say that chaos is ordered. no its not
chaos is random.

let's first remember what chaos is. And the simplest definition of chaos is that it represents "the perfect disorder". It's a disorder so well organized that you can see an order inside it. Does that make any sense? So, if chaos is a perfectly ordered disorder, what is the order? It is the cause of disorder. For example, we can say that the Universe, in its continuous expansion, it's just a combination of progressive disorder. But this disorder, as it expands itself, creates new orders and each of these orders can be identified with the initial order. So even inside chaos, which is disorder in its pure form, order is created. Therefore why would it be so bad for chaos to arise? All disorders will lead to new orders, in the future...

[...]

chaos is not planned or foreseen or mutually agreed
it has to take a step away from chaos to bring in a bit of unity to bring features and people together

However, I have a different view here... There is a concept name Spontaneous order. It implies that people, by themselves, can organize themselves, even without an authority leading them to do it. Just like in the example with the overcrowded shop. From something which looks like chaos, with no visible order, a new order appears and people organize themselves, in order to be able to find their products on the shelves, pick them up, pay for them and go home. Peacefully.

According to Wikipedia, Spontaneous order, also named self-organization in the hard sciences, is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos.

No wonder, Wikipedia continues, the great economists following Austrian school, about which we discussed earlier, come into play: The Austrian School of Economics, led by Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek made it a centerpiece in its social and economic thought. Hayek's theory of spontaneous order is the product of two related but distinct influences that do not always tend in the same direction.

The reference to anarchism says the following:

Anarchists argue that the state is in fact an artificial creation of the ruling elite, and that true spontaneous order would arise if it was eliminated. This is construed by some but not all as the ushering in of organization by anarchist law. In the anarchist view, such spontaneous order would involve the voluntary cooperation of individuals. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, "the work of many symbolic interactionists is largely compatible with the anarchist vision, since it harbours a view of society as spontaneous order.

So see, even from pure chaos, order may arise. Just by itself.

[1miau]

I understand your point of view; furthermore, I agree with it. But tell me this: how many times have you seen, in the past 5000 years, a fair governance...?

A really 100% fair governance is difficult to achieve because in a society, you'll always have different points of views. For example, you have bought a new house in the suburbs. Then, a new street directly to the city center will be build directly behind your garden. Some people will like it to get easier and faster to the city center. Some businessmen will like it to have faster delievery time to the city center.
But you and your neightbours won't like it most likely since you'll get noise and pollution from the traffic.
There are always conflicting interests, we could find much more examples.
So, even a completely fair governance will not prevent such things but it can try to improve things as much as possible.

As someone from Germany, we have seen a wide range of governance forms.
Interestingly, the more decentralized ones have been much more fair (Weimarer Republik (1919-1933) and our current form (BRD = Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Western Germany) based on Grundgesetz (constitution from 1949)).
Although I need to say that Weimarer Republik got abused when Hitler seized power in 1933 and set up a new form of government (fascism) removing the democratic core principles Weimarer Republik - and we know what he did later.  
And then, we had a form of government existing in parallel with BRD (Western Germany), called DDR (Eastern Germany). BRD and DDR existed in parallel until DDR collapsed in 1989 and Germany was united as BRD.
DDR has been a Communist dictatorship and tried to build a wall (Berlin wall) to prevent people from fleeing to Western Germany because Western Germany had much more liberties and simply a better living standard.

I don't know Romanian history but I believe DDR has been similar to Ceausescu dictatorship? Both were abolished in 1989.  

Bitcoin is a great example here because of censorship resistance. It's very dificult to abuse Bitcoin. Not impossible like a 51% attack but attacking it will lead to a very high cost for the attacker. A cost, he can't afford. Proof of WORK.  
But I also think mixing Bitcoin and real-life issues lacks a bit comparability.
Bitcoin might be fair but it can't be applied to our street issue above.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I’m in favor of a fair governance instead of an efficient one.

There is nothing fair objectively. Instruments that implement politics follow the elected party's fairness definition. What's fair for a pro-capitalistic party might not be fair for a pro-socialistic party. Governing is about dictating what's fair.

You know what they say. Ask 10 people what's fairness, and get 11 different definitions.

[franky1]

some say that chaos is ordered. no its not
chaos is random.

let's first remember what chaos is. And the simplest definition of chaos is that it represents "the perfect disorder". It's a disorder so well organized that you can see an order inside it. Does that make any sense? So, if chaos is a perfectly ordered disorder, what is the order? It is the cause of disorder. For example, we can say that the Universe, in its continuous expansion, it's just a combination of progressive disorder. But this disorder, as it expands itself, creates new orders and each of these orders can be identified with the initial order. So even inside chaos, which is disorder in its pure form, order is created. Therefore why would it be so bad for chaos to arise? All disorders will lead to new orders, in the future...

[...]

chaos is not planned or foreseen or mutually agreed
it has to take a step away from chaos to bring in a bit of unity to bring features and people together

However, I have a different view here... There is a concept name Spontaneous order. It implies that people, by themselves, can organize themselves, even without an authority leading them to do it. Just like in the example with the overcrowded shop. From something which looks like chaos, with no visible order, a new order appears and people organize themselves, in order to be able to find their products on the sleves, pick them up, pay for them and go home. Peacefully.

According to Wikipedia, Spontaneous order, also named self-organization in the hard sciences, is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos.

chaos is the lack of order.. end of

things then mentioned about 'spontaneous order'.. i reply with blah..

lets actually specify things related to our community(bitcoin)  
things like byzantine generals fault. as the pre bitcoin 'chaos'
which consensus solved(mainly 2009-2016)..(some doubt it ever existed or want to redefine its meaning post 2016)
 is a better understanding of cryptos' cooperative and uniting factor (well 2009-2016 anyway)

by which we are seeing less of consensus unity and agreement(self govern).. and now more hierarchical representative elitism at play(core reference client of protocol rules) from 2017 onwards of a central govern system.. where by rules are just made up without a consensus (consent by survey of population) to activate the rule.
where the idiots definition of consensus is to just agree to follow a governed rule made by a core roadmap group. to stay in the community.
where if people disagree with this they can f**k off (no more community vote(no more self govern). just stay in the governed system or emigrate)

[Phu Juck]

Nobody has done research about Murray Bookchin? He’s a great actor of a less profit driven society.
Libertarianism is prone to malicious actors and Murray tried to emphasize people over profits, where he shared his opinion on barter.
For example he rejected fascism because fascism is opposed to liberty and Murray Bookchain knew an important fundamental: absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It needs a form of govern and individuals should decide it.

Bitcoin can act as a special form of barter and when we research genius texts of Murray Bookchin, we can see why!

When barter?

[franky1]

Nobody has done research about Murray Bookchin? He’s a great actor of a less profit driven society.
Libertarianism is prone to malicious actors and Murray tried to emphasize people over profits, where he shared his opinion on barter.
For example he rejected fascism because fascism is opposed to liberty and Murray Bookchain knew an important fundamental: absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It needs a form of govern and individuals should decide it.

Bitcoin can act as a special form of barter and when we research genius texts of Murray Bookchin, we can see why!

When barter?

usually libertarianism can only really succeed thrive from a proposer/influencer/ideal(central)... once the proposer has disappeared to ensure the proposer then does not make subsequent demands, pledges, proposals that turns them into an authority

murray only really got truly popular after his death in 2006
bitcoin only really got popular after satoshis disappearance in 2011

if both were still around today. then they would have been seen as leaders/influencers, which then is not libertarianism(self governance)

as for barter.. hmm / not really happening

if it were then bitcoin would be rated not in central exchanged dollar..
it instead would be rated in minimum wage.. where local communities will exchange 1btc for 1700 hours labour(about right for US min-wage) where by it also equates to (converted to dollar) $510 in africa per bitcoin for the same 1700 sweat labour
as that would be a true value barter measure.

[GazetaBitcoin]

So, even a completely fair governance will not prevent such things but it can try to improve things as much as possible.

I fully agree.

I don't know Romanian history but I believe DDR has been similar to Ceausescu dictatorship? Both were abolished in 1989. 

Yes, most likely. Now, of course, I don't think as DDR regime was so oppressive to its citizen like Ceausescu was (limiting the amount of food to precise and very low quantities; making sure people can't buy more food than the one allowed etc. -- Should I also mention that, in winters, Ceausescu was also limiting the heat inside houses and people had to survive with only 17 Celsius degrees inside their homes?) -- but I believe it was similar. Besides, many totalitarian regimes fell in 1989...

Bitcoin is a great example here because of censorship resistance. It's very dificult to abuse Bitcoin.

True.

Bitcoin might be fair but it can't be applied to our street issue above.

At least, not yet...

There is a concept name Spontaneous order. It implies that people, by themselves, can organize themselves, even without an authority leading them to do it. [...]
According to Wikipedia, Spontaneous order, also named self-organization in the hard sciences, is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos.

chaos is the lack of order.. end of

things then mentioned about 'spontaneous order'.. i reply with blah..

You'd be surprised, but spontaneous order is not the only order which appears out of nowhere, straight from chaos. And it is certainly not a blah. Nor the spontaneous order nor the other thing which I will document here. I am talking about catallaxy.

lets actually specify things related to our community(bitcoin)

And catallaxy can be seen into Bitcoin as well. According to Austrian school economist Friedrich Hayek, catallaxy is "the order brought about by the mutual adjustment of many individual economies in a market". From obvious reasons, since people associate by will, we can also say that catallaxy is a part of praxeology. (I will not enter in deep details about praxeology; it should suffice to say that praxeology is the science of human actions and it implies all the actions made by humans for a purpose. Uncontrollable actions, such as coughing or sneezing are not part of praxeology, as they are reflexive actions.)

Practically, catallaxy is close to spontaneous order, but it only brings together people with mutual interests in economics.

things like byzantine generals fault. as the pre bitcoin 'chaos'
which consensus solved(mainly 2009-2016)

Bitcoin is an economic system and consensus is a very important part of it. We can say that all users which adhere to this consensus are also subject or catallaxy. Then again: out of nowhere (chaos), Bitcoin appeared. The earlier chaos found a spontaneous order and this order was named Bitcoin. And through catallaxy, the sister of spontaneous order, bitcoiners gather together to form a consensus.

[Smartprofit]

Perhaps libertarians, crypto-anarchists and cypherpunks are afraid to publicly express their ideas, since these ideas are not accepted by modern social society.  

In my opinion, social society has changed a lot in the last 15 years.  It is known that one of the most famous libertarians, John McCaffee, died on June 23, 2021 in a Spanish prison.  This is a real tragedy!  We all know that McCaffe has rendered a serious and undoubted service to society, as he created a very popular antivirus.  

Modern people agree with censorship and self-censorship.  They actively use centralized services, trust the government and large IT corporations.  

Modern people are more sympathetic to the ideas of socialism, as well as far-right ideas, than to the ideas of libertarianism.

[GazetaBitcoin]

Perhaps libertarians, crypto-anarchists and cypherpunks are afraid to publicly express their ideas, since these ideas are not accepted by modern social society.

But why would they be afraid? They did it in the past. Precious essays, such as Tim May's Crypto Anarchist Manifesto or Eric Hughes' Cypherpunk Manifesto were published decades ago. The topics I mentioned in OP were also posted on this forum. I don;t understand where these people are now. It seems like most of them simply vanished...

In my opinion, social society has changed a lot in the last 15 years.

It certainly did.

It is known that one of the most famous libertarians, John McCaffee, died on June 23, 2021 in a Spanish prison.  This is a real tragedy!  We all know that McCaffee has rendered a serious and undoubted service to society, as he created a very popular antivirus.

Losing a life is always a very sad thing. No matter it was a libertarian's, a priest's a neighbor's life or the life of anyone else...

Modern people agree with censorship and self-censorship.  They actively use centralized services, trust the government and large IT corporations.

And they are more and more wrong. But a strong argument for this behavior is the fact that people are not educated anymore for valuing their privacy, their anonymity. Cypherpunks are mostly long gone and, together with them are also gone their loud voices which encouraged people to preserve their privacy in front of third parties.

As I mentioned also in another topic, personal information remains personal until its owner decides to share it with others. From that moment forward it is not personal information anymore, as the owner cancelled the deepest meaning of the term "personal" when he shared his information with others...

[Smartprofit]

I recently read Yaroslav Gzhendovich's book "Helium - 3".  This sci-fi novel describes our near future.  

Refusal of hydrocarbon fuel, technological degradation of Europe, digital concentration camp in China, the state of New Soviets under the leadership of General Secretary Putin II....

The protagonist of the novel finds himself in a very dangerous situation and he is rescued by a cypherpunk nicknamed Mechanic.  In the future, the Mechanic is killed, but at the end of the book it turns out that he managed to survive.  

When I read this book, I decided that libertarians and cypherpunks are underground nowadays. They can exist, but outside the social society, because the modern social society does not share their ideas.  

The Mechanic from Gzhendovich's novel was a socially active person, but in the social society of the future he was an outcast and had to constantly hide.  

Therefore, in my opinion, modern libertarians have not changed their convictions, but have abandoned publicity.  

They have no illusions that modern society can be reformed in the spirit of libertarianism.

[franky1]

ok he is moving onto economics and catallaxy(ill get to the liberarian part to reign gazetta back in)

first lets handle the reason i blahed spontaneous order.. (meaning is skipped it as a non stater of meaningful debate)

randomness vs chaos

the difference is:
random sentiment is just a bunch of variables. if you can see enough the variables you can avoid the chaos
but the more variables there are the more "like" chaos it appears(volatility) until its unpredictable and completely random where you can no longer see the order or the order is seen as completely broke

..
now take my views in many topics on bitcoins VALUE discovery of bitcoin economics and markets.. yep value not price

there are known variables in the world where people equally agree that something hits a bottomline value where every one agrees something is cheap where sellers can no longer profit or break even and thus refuse to sell below

as is at the top the premium where everyone agrees something is expensive and buys all end up agreeing its just too much

sellers fizzle out at the bottom refusing to sell at value
and
buyers at top fizzle out and refuse to buy at premium

this creates a order of a value window (bitcoins 2021 market VALUE window was $10k-$75k). where the market speculation of random sentiment traded within this window above value and below premium and it looked like chaos within this window. until you could see the window frame.. and then seen the order within the frame

the supposed random sentiment of bitcoins market within the window is the catallaxy, where as the known things of economics is the deflationary wider window itself is the economy

.. now back to libertarianism
there is no outlaw, lawless theory in libertarianism. there is no chaos
just because its not a formal order underneath some letter head or leadership does not mean libertarianism = chaos

as for trying to define libertarian structure or the bitcoin community into terms like spontaneous order thats just like saying "random" where you just cant see all the variables so get surprised that there is order, until boom, you see it (spontaneous window frame) and then think it must have been chaos before it due to lack of seeing the order prior

but things evolve, and its the development of many many variables that seem random that collide, collude, cooperate or correspond, act and react that cause these seemingly random act to uniform and unite into bigger more noticeable collectives

libertarianism is not like 10million random minds just woke up one day and started walking towards the light.
certain things happened along the way where things evolved into libertarianisms out of (to some) complete randomness and chaos. but to others subsets of order that evolved into wider sets of collective framed order

fiat world over centuries started at whats seemed as chaos where rival tribes had different currencies and slowly coming together until theres only a few notable currencies left in the fiat economy. converging on the point of dollar dominance of what some call a "one world currency" threat (fear of authoritarianism)

where some want some informal frame of order but a wide window frame to allow alot of variable freedoms
libertarianism has framework and within that framework window. are those that still want self governance where no one can shrink the window unless the collective decide in a self governing manner, and no one should control or be able to close the window.

crypto on the other hand started with one and is diverging out. doing the opposite

libertarians want diversity/freedoms yet still retain a common conceptions of certain agreements of basic frameworks

now where did the libertarians go
they are still in crypto. they just diverged out into other cryptocoins while still within the common framework of crypto-economy

[NotATether]

now where did the libertarians go
they are still in crypto. they just diverged out into other cryptocoins while still within the common framework of crypto-economy

But why? Other coins are mostly focused on the technical part of their design, not their practical use. So why would libertarians bother with that kind of stuff when they are just looking for an anti-capitalist tool such as Bitcoin?

[franky1]

now where did the libertarians go
they are still in crypto. they just diverged out into other cryptocoins while still within the common framework of crypto-economy

But why? Other coins are mostly focused on the technical part of their design, not their practical use. So why would libertarians bother with that kind of stuff when they are just looking for an anti-capitalist tool such as Bitcoin?

maybe you should ask a buddy

the one who constantly says core devs should do what they want and if anyone opposes/doesnt like it they should fork off and see who follows them
.. its reasons such as that which most other projects started on altcoins rather then being proposed on bitcoin


consensus as it was designed 2009 but slowly diminished 2014-17 WAS unity via common consent of acceptance. and evolution of rule via consent of the mass peers, where if mass population of peers do not consent or simply abstain to not be ready to support a new rule.. then a new contentious rule does not activate. whereby proposers simply go back to the drawing board and think of a proposal that the majority would get behind

certain others think "freedom".. but freedom of higher class elitists, who should do as they please and the community should follow or get out

[BlackHatCoiner]

So why would libertarians bother with that kind of stuff when they are just looking for an anti-capitalist tool such as Bitcoin?

Bitcoin being an anti what? Bitcoin is a fully libertarian and right-wing / capitalistic tool, provided that denationalizing central banking is a benefit for the free enterprise system. A money that is strictly tied with the state (that is, central banking), is fundamentally against capitalism, as monetary system isn't governed by individuals.

Right-wing libertarians support cryptocurrencies. Left-wings don't; they demand state intervention.