Libertarians -- where are they now?

[Carlton Banks]

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.  

famous for what? he was a liar and a thief above all

Perhaps libertarians, crypto-anarchists and cypherpunks are afraid to publicly express their ideas, since these ideas are not accepted by modern social society.  
[snip] Modern people are more sympathetic to the ideas of socialism, as well as far-right ideas, than to the ideas of libertarianism.

libertarian ideas do get presented in public, but always a little watered down, and then mixed together with right wing populism. it works quite well as a setup to use the "libertarian means a slightly nicer Mussolini" argument, and oh what a coincidence that the talking heads that espouse this cleverly contrived viewpoint are always presented on big news channels and newspapers as "most dangerous person in the country", and yet always presented nonetheless.

it's actually a slightly altered version of the "5 minutes of hate" concept from Orwell's 1984

[1miau]

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.

Well, that's a common misconception. 
It should be self-explanatory that Bitcoin can't be "right-wing" when it's denationalizing at the same time. A Nation state is inherently right-wing (but it can be left-wing, too, maybe current China could be an example).

In reality, Bitcoin is apolitical. It's truly neutral.
It's what people use if for because Bitcoin can be used for many purposes.

Let's compare it to gold. Gold can also be used for many purposes. First of all, gold is a chemical element and can also be used for many purposes.


About John McAfee: he had made some contributions in his earlier days but overally, especially the last years, he has been a great grifter. Anyone still remembers how he shilled Verge in 2017 / 2018? Anyone remembers his own, unsuccesful shitcoin? I believe John McAfee had humble intentions but somehow his greed and shill problems outweighed his (mosly early) contributions.

[YouYou0321]

There is nothing anarchist or lawless about Bitcoin.

Who said that? Anarchism and crypto-anarchism (that was mentioned by OP) are not the same things, you might wanna read up on the latter.

Yes, anarchism and confidential anarchism are not the same thing. Some people are unwilling to be bound by rules, but many rules are to ensure the reasonable survival of human beings on the earth. I think it is necessary for a Bitcoin world federation to exist. All Everything under this organization is open and transparent.

[franky1]

All Everything under this organization is open and transparent.

you may read an open newspaper, does not mean you get a job as an editor/reporter
a house door may be open doesnt mean you get to re paint the interior

there is moderation in many levels of bitcoin.
can you remember the date where you were part of the decision of promoting a contributor to a merge privilege dev.. no ? cant remember?
well a small group granted it and they didnt care about thoughts of those outside the group

[BlackHatCoiner]

It should be self-explanatory that Bitcoin can't be "right-wing" when it's denationalizing at the same time.

Conservatives don't want denationalization. Right-wings aren't necessarily conservatives.

In reality, Bitcoin is apolitical. It's truly neutral.

I'll have to disagree. The roots of Bitcoin come from the Austrian school of economics. It's the Austrian perspective that sees the economy as an individual driven one, without centrally controlled instruments that can have the most significant affectation. A society that uses bitcoin solely as currency, is an Austrian envisioned one.

A Keynesian-based society requires money monopoly from the state.

[GazetaBitcoin]

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

I never said that libertarianism means chaos. The earlier discussion was about a different subject -- about how order may arise from perfect disorder, perfect disorder being the chaos. So we had two different subjects at the same time.

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?

I don't think that they entered in altcoin communities. At least not all of them. Those which were here since Bitcoin or even the apparition of Bitcoin don't have any reason for changing their focus on other coins. Maybe the reason for which these libertarians became more or less silent is the fact that their voice is covered by all those which entered in crypto hoping only to get rich over night. Maybe libertarians which believed in Bitcoin and in its power to eliminate middle men feel disgusted by seeing so many people around them talking about crypto while having only greed in mind...

[BenCodie]

Someone should dig deeper into the most notable classic threads from the Bitcoin community. I might do that in my spare time if no one else does. The shift in the space is noticeable by looking at those threads. It would be great if the libertarian movement was fueled further, thrived and succeeded over decades rather than it watering down to where we are today...or are is a libertarian move cooking up in the background? I would not be surprised if all of the development happening in the background is a lead up to a final showdown between Bitcoin and the fiat order. What a time to be alive that would be! Either way, we are a part of history and I can't wait to see what unfolds. In the meantime, I will have to find a copy of atlus shrugged and give it a thorough read one day.

[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?

I don't think that they entered in altcoin communities. At least not all of them. Those which were here since Bitcoin or even the apparition of Bitcoin don't have any reason for changing their focus on other coins. Maybe the reason for which these libertarians became more or less silent is the fact that their voice is covered by all those which entered in crypto hoping only to get rich over night. Maybe libertarians which believed in Bitcoin and in its power to eliminate middle men feel disgusted by seeing so many people around them talking about crypto while having only greed in mind...

that is a considerable factor. the sub 100,000 OG bitcoin libertarians of say 2013 are washed out by the 100m capitalist consumers

Someone should dig deeper into the most notable classic threads from the Bitcoin community. I might do that in my spare time if no one else does. The shift in the space is noticeable by looking at those threads.

most notable threads are actually when there is disagreement of "bitcoin roadmap" that many do fork/ico genesis off to other networks.. due to fighting the moderated hierarchy of capitalist devs who have the merge decision power

(note majority core devs with merge capability are corporate paid now) and most "voluntary devs" who have merge privilege only have their merge privilege on other projects

its also said that alot of the the capitalist consumers fork/ico genesis off too(hence the useless greed pump dump coins of many thousands of crap coins)

sidenote
2009-2014 was an era where bitcoin was seen as "true money" the collective self governing worked(consensus). people had "keys" and "signatures" that were proof of ownership.. in reality and in legal jargon of property law protected rights

now we have corporate hierarchy of paid and moderator protected reference client CORE(central) development. and when it comes to coin ownership.. in legal terminology , we have "witnesses" and "scripts" and "seeds" which has changed bitcoin from a property ownership law system of value ownership. into a capitalist legal jargon of not so protected property right of value

alot has changed in a decade, and some have noticed, and the same some have noticed those who are siding with the new regime

[1miau]

It should be self-explanatory that Bitcoin can't be "right-wing" when it's denationalizing at the same time.

Conservatives don't want denationalization. Right-wings aren't necessarily conservatives.

But in Germany, conservatives are polling 35% currently and they are pro (German) Nation (which isn't bad as long as it's not nationalism). I can even present you some election slogans.
The radical right (polling around 10-15%) is even more pro German Nation state. If we say something against German identity, they might punch us in our face.  

In reality, Bitcoin is apolitical. It's truly neutral.

I'll have to disagree. The roots of Bitcoin come from the Austrian school of economics. It's the Austrian perspective that sees the economy as an individual driven one, without centrally controlled instruments that can have the most significant affectation. A society that uses bitcoin solely as currency, is an Austrian envisioned one.

Then, I would disagree again because "Bitcoin's roots" can't be described in a simple sentence. We should not make the mistake to limit Bitcoin to some of its characteristics. Bitcoin’s capped limit of 21M coins will make it a hard asset, yes, as Austrian Economists like it but it’s only one of many characteristics of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is not right-wing but also not left-wing. It’s completely neutral and it’s up to the people how Bitcoin is used.
So far, many people tried to define Bitcoin while only really few appropriate definitions have been made.
One of them is from gmaxwell and he made it back in 2016 on reddit, when he quoted someone giving his insight:

   It's a bit like on a Bus stop and every 10 minutes a bus comes by with a maximum capacity, you can ask people to pay more fees to get onto the bus but that doesn't change the fact that people will be left in the cold and there is no way around that.

The late Ted Stevens might be impressed with the analogy here. But the Bitcoin blockchain is not like a bus in pretty much any way, nor are transactions like passengers. When someone creates a bus it isn't a single use event where every participant in the transit network needs to store a duplicate of that bus in their backyard forever.

A better analogy is to to compare the blockchain to a court. In the land of imagination people were worried about being defrauded in their transactions, to prevent this they were sure to take all their trades before the land's court so that the perfectly trustworthy judge would not allow anyone to spend funds they already spent or fail to deliver the funds that they promised. Over time the court became heavily used and courts do not scale especially well and so the people of imagination land instead realized that they could arrange their business engagements with contracts and record keeping so that in the rare event of a dispute they could visit the court and obtain justice. But ordinary they wouldn't-- saving the court for disputes and other infrequent procedures and ceremonies (like name changes). Not only does this improve capacity, but it improves latency too-- you don't have to wait for the court to hear your case to make every purchase!

So, gmaxwell compared Bitcoin to a (public) court. And a (public) court needs to be truly neutral, as it will apply code as law.

In my opinion, it's a great analogy and one of the best defininions I’ve seen so far.
Bitcoin is like a (public) court.  

[franky1]

a block is like a bus though and transactions are the passengers
a blockchain is a bus manifest of passengers who bought tickets and their destinations listed, over multiple journeys

the protocol is a bus policy (rules of the road, routes and passenger agreement, schedule, etc)

breaking the bus schedule by having more buses per 10mins(a different bad proposal back then) is not a economic best plan. as it affects many things in the ecosystem. (rewards, blocks per difficulty, halving cycles, energy cost)

however buses with more capacity to let more passenger in is scaling bitcoin, without as many headaches as other proposals back then
..
when lukeJr proposed smaller blocks to make people not want to use bitcoin as much. everyone laughed .. yet 2017 masterplan of offramping bitcoiners to other networks is all certain people want..

..
when bitcoin scaling first started being discussed if someone said we want to scale bitcoin to allow more bitcoiners to use bitcoin
and if someone said way back then "sure lets scale bitcoin. ok heres a bike, you can get on it without waiting at a bus stop. and its timeshare price for journey time is far far less than a bus ticket"

would you call that scaling buses.. nope
..
if libertarians said they wanted free university education. and a corporation built a new city that had free schools 50 miles away. and said i call this city "univer" so now you have your univer-city free education
would you be happy
..
gmax went full on talk about a court system where he is the judge and he just wants to give the appearance that the witnesses and attendees and jury get a say in a judgement

the block/blockchain is just data.. a passenger manifest list of who bought tickets and went on a 10minute ride and reached their destination

a blockchain is not a court
if we were to use court terminology the blockchain is the transcript of proceedings.

however the protocol. would be the bus brand company deciding route and bus capacity and journey times and also setting fees

or in court terminology.. the protocol is the judge and clerks.
 the jury just relay their opinion on valid or reject. but ultimately the judge gets to agree or overrule and change the sentence or apply his own sentence without a jury

2009-2014 was a "jury of thy peers"
2015-2016 was a "judge and jury"
2017+ bench judge trials, with witnesses and reporters
..
his comparison to alleviate the courts by getting people to dispute out of court and only need to settle in court once in a blue moon. is not scaling bitcoin. its leaving bitcoin to go use some other dispute resolution system

"scaling" seems to be a word certain people cannot come to terms with.
removing, making burdensome to use to promote some other system is not "scaling"

[1miau]

a blockchain is not a court

Since we have on-chain transactions and Lightning now, it's even more obvious that the Blockchain can be compared to a court and less to a bus.

Lightning is showing us how the bus comparison is not necessarily true. And a Lightning transaction also can't be compared to park and ride since many additional people would be brought to the park and ride to take the bus afterwards.
But that doesn't work for the Blockchain. Lightning is "consolidating" transactions and settling it by broadcasting it to the Blockchain. We can't do that with additional people going into a bus. 

In my opinion, the court analogy is more accurate. 

[BenCodie]

Someone should dig deeper into the most notable classic threads from the Bitcoin community. I might do that in my spare time if no one else does. The shift in the space is noticeable by looking at those threads.

most notable threads are actually when there is disagreement of "bitcoin roadmap" that many do fork/ico genesis off to other networks.. due to fighting the moderated hierarchy of capitalist devs who have the merge decision power

(note majority core devs with merge capability are corporate paid now) and most "voluntary devs" who have merge privilege only have their merge privilege on other projects

its also said that alot of the the capitalist consumers fork/ico genesis off too(hence the useless greed pump dump coins of many thousands of crap coins)

sidenote
2009-2014 was an era where bitcoin was seen as "true money" the collective self governing worked(consensus). people had "keys" and "signatures" that were proof of ownership.. in reality and in legal jargon of property law protected rights

now we have corporate hierarchy of paid and moderator protected reference client CORE(central) development. and when it comes to coin ownership.. in legal terminology , we have "witnesses" and "scripts" and "seeds" which has changed bitcoin from a property ownership law system of value ownership. into a capitalist legal jargon of not so protected property right of value

alot has changed in a decade, and some have noticed, and the same some have noticed those who are siding with the new regime

That...really sucks. Do you ever think that the scales will tip back the right way in the future?

[franky1]

when everyone has a "right"(responsibility), and a right(direction)
who's "right" way?
which right way?



reminding people that when there is a disagreement. that consensus (consent via mass survey) solves the byzantine generals problem. and not putting in a reference general that decides what the soldiers should follow

[BenCodie]

when everyone has a "right"(responsibility), and a right(direction)
who's "right" way?
which right way?



reminding people that when there is a disagreement. that consensus (consent via mass survey) solves the byzantine generals problem. and not putting in a reference general that decides what the soldiers should follow

You're right  My bad!

I should have asked, do you think in your own humble opinion, that Bitcoin or the surrounding ecosystem will ever "circle back" to its root libertarian nature or its clear objectives,  being to overcome the varying level of monetary tyranny imposed on people by banks, corporations and/or governments?

This question is in a way two different questions with the same prefix.

[franky1]

bitcoin 2009-2014 was legally undefined as currency, thus property law was 9-10ths of the law .. which was great.
property law also included things like privacy law.

now its legally jumping from property to currency to asset to commodity. means bitcoin now gets regulated as such and property law no longer protects users value. especially with legal terminology thats not about possession and keys. and instead witness statements

legally
if your just providing a witness statement to the movement of value. its not your value. your just an observer
yes its proof it happened but not proof you own it

bank secrecies act(currency law) makes currency one of the things not protected by thinks like privacy law. thus businesses can invade privacy of those using currency with them

alot has changed in the last 8 years. alot of things have been redefined.
and it would take alot of education to get the masses to realise the impositions that have been imposed, for them to want to lobby for change back to how things were.

greed of the capitalist however wont want that change backwards, and capitalism has over taken as the "mass"

take satoshis message in the genesis block. about how he wanted bitcoin to be different than the banking system
and yet 2022 we see things like FTX, DCG do the same value shuffling co-mingling, stealing, mismanagement.. just like the pre 2008 fiat bankers

..
yes the ecosystem can diversify and decentralise again.. and lobby to reclassify legally again as property, and redefine terminology to regain legal status as such definitions.. other things can happen like take away cores hierarchy governership and return to self govern by random wallets utilising and uniting in consensus without needing a central general
yes its all 'possible' but will it happen?

it requires the masses to be educated to motivate the masses to want to change things

[GazetaBitcoin]

Someone should dig deeper into the most notable classic threads from the Bitcoin community. I might do that in my spare time if no one else does. The shift in the space is noticeable by looking at those threads.

If you'd get that done, it would be amazing! Make a compilation of libertarian threads, similar to other compilation topics about Satoshi -- like this one: I gathered every Satoshi Nakamoto thread -- but yours would contain libertarian topics. I was also thinking about something similar but, sadly, time will never allow me to perform so many in-depth searches through the forum and look for all these topics and group them into a big one. But if you'll manage to do it I am sure that many will appreciate your work. I, for one, will certainly appreciate your efforts! Let me know, please, if you'll do it.

is a libertarian move cooking up in the background?

Who knows...?!

What a time to be alive that would be! Either way, we are a part of history and I can't wait to see what unfolds.

This post of yours reminded me once more of the words written by that Anonymous user, more than a decade ago:

After reading this, the scale of black market and digital economies and the effect Bitcoin will have on them I am pretty certain we are going to be very wealthy men -- even with a sum as small as 10 Bitcoins. It's just so hard to believe. We are only in the beginning storms with these significant rallies from 10 to 20 dollars. I will not be surprised to see prices from hundreds to thousands in the coming months.

The world just isn't going to be the same and we have been blessed as the pioneers.

In the meantime, I will have to find a copy of atlus shrugged and give it a thorough read one day.

I encourage you to do it. And, if you want more similar books -- must-read books, I can point you some more titles (including, but not limited to: the only two fiction books which refer to Cypherpunks -- SnowCrash and Cryptonomicon (and, if you like them, you can read the entire Cryptonomicon sequel, which include Quicksilver, The Confusion, The System of the World, Fall; or, Dodge in Hell and Reamde); the books written by Julian Assange (Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet, Underground, When Google Met WikiLeaks, The Unauthorised Autobiography) or those about him (Nils Melzer's The Trial of Julian Assange: A Story of Persecution, Andrew Fowler's The Most Dangerous Man In The World: The Inside Story On Julian Assange And WikiLeaks); Vernor Vinge's True Names (which also contains Tim May's essay True Nyms and Crypto Anarchy). Needless to say, Orwell's 1984 is another must read And, if you want, I have more for you.

ok he is moving onto economics and catallaxy

You'd be surprised, but I may be the only one (or, at least, one of the very few) which ever discussed here about spontaneous order, catallaxy or praxeology. I actually performed a Google search and, excepting a very few posts about praxeology, I didn't find any post about spontaneous order, nor about catallaxy written inside this forum. Of course, I may be wrong.

[franky1]

ok he is moving onto economics and catallaxy

You'd be surprised, but I may be the only one (or, at least, one of the very few) which ever discussed here about spontaneous order, catallaxy or praxeology. I actually performed a Google search and, excepting a very few posts about praxeology, I didn't find any post about spontaneous order, nor about catallaxy written inside this forum. Of course, I may be wrong.

im not surprised. i blahed it for a reasons..

i blahed it because it was unrelated to the subject lines. it was as if you were trying to throw as many words as you can at a wall and see which one sticks.

(edit)
as others including someone that opposes me all the time(below) have told you it was not a spontaneous order thing.

a blockchain is not a court

Since we have on-chain transactions and Lightning now, it's even more obvious that the Blockchain can be compared to a court and less to a bus.

Lightning is showing us how the bus comparison is not necessarily true. And a Lightning transaction also can't be compared to park and ride since many additional people would be brought to the park and ride to take the bus afterwards.
But that doesn't work for the Blockchain. Lightning is "consolidating" transactions and settling it by broadcasting it to the Blockchain. We can't do that with additional people going into a bus.  

In my opinion, the court analogy is more accurate.  

when you realise
that lightning is not the bitcoin network.
and LN onion payments are not in anyway similar to bitcoin payments.
and realise bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network.
and realise that without needing to recompile a LN node, LN can peg to other networks.. thus can survive without bitcoin

you start to realise LN is not bitcoin, nor a sole feature that solely works or nor functions or nor is unique to bitcoin.
thats its, its own network of a totally different transport system with crappy rules that are not enforced and can allow fractional reserving and value de-pegs(value insecurity)

you start to realise you should not be comparing bitcoin to something based on a separate networks bridging terms

mixing alot of metaphors now.
(ITS MIXED METAPHORES BECAUSE YOUR LINK WAS ABOUT SCALING BITCOIN. WHICH IS ABOUT TRANSACTION CAPACITY(TRANSPORT OF POPULATION) YET GMAX WENT LEFT AND START TALKING ABOUT THE LEGAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROTOCOL. as of 2017+ involving new format and another network as evidence))

so here goes..

if bitcoin was a city with its own road/transport network..segwit is a bridge to a different island. and LN is that other island that can bridge to other coins too..
(proof of unused bus ticket(bitcoin UTXO) to claim island boat ticket(segwit).. does not make LN boats(onion routed msat) the same as bitcoin buses)

its like you want to say "bitcoin is a court because outside of court theres this other mediation thing people use on another island "
there is no logic in it
using a bus ticket(legacy) to convert to a passport(segwit) to use the passport to harbour value(funding lock) to get to a different island by boat(msat). does not make everything now some other thing.

bitcoin is bitcoin and the other island stuff and the bridge offramps stuff are other stuff invented to pretend the other island is bitcoin

yes the bridge tx format(passport(segwit)) that allows users to offramp (harbour value(funding lock)) away from bitcoin and play around outside of bitcoin (with value they think (falsely) still ties them to bitcoin) has terminology of witnesses and witness descriptions and transcripts.. which are court based words
this makes LN the court..

meaning.. LN is the court of witness transcripts and (reliant on segwit passports)

but thats new inventive words .. its not bitcoin based on 2009-2017
the stuff gmax and yourself are trying to push is that instead of bitcoin being property(keys/signatures). some are defining it and legally changing peoples rights..

those using segwit are now some witness statement used in court(LN).. meaning its not do to with moving YOUR property. but about observing movements of value of things no one has ownership of where everyone is just witness to value they had access to witness its movements

sorry but il stick to how bitcoin is represented. by key possession and ownership.. i will not be downgraded to just being a witness to funds moving that used to be considered mine. but not mine if i move them into silly formats made after 2017
(ill stick with legacy thanks.. oh and legacy does not function with LN)

[DooMAD]

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.

I'm not convinced that has much, if anything, to do with Bitcoin, though.  Order didn't just occur all by itself.  If Bitcoin were to be boiled down to a simple premise, I'd argue it would be something along the lines of 'order through incentive'.  People were motivated to build a network together, because satoshi invented a framework whereby the reward for a cohesive network outweighs the cost of attacking the network.  The incentives are both financial and practical.  The block rewards and mining fees provide the initial financial incentive.  The censorship resistance and the privacy provided the initial practical benefits.  And then you get the eventual network effects where the more users a network has, the more utility it potentially has, the speculative price explodes and it all snowballs from there. 

Not spontaneity.  Pure incentive.

And we could probably spend the next hundred years arguing whether the economic concept behind it is libertarian/capitalist/austrian/anarchy/whatever but, in the end, I'm not sure it matters all that much.  Everyone's view is going to be tinted by their own beliefs, life experiences and even the way in which they choose to define such words.

[Carlton Banks]

right. the small amount of writing that is specific to this era doesn't truly comport with the basics of classical liberalism or austrian economics. A recurring theme of writers describing a post cypherpunk world is "the new tools and networks will be such powerful forces that any opposition is simply to piss into the wind".

isn't that a good description of today's world? software is being written and used by people to exert their beliefs and will on the world, and those beliefs and determinations come in all shapes and sizes. Anything effective enough changes day to day life near-instantly, but only until something new comes along and changes everything again. It's like Andy Warhol's "15 minutes of fame" suddenly now applies to tech trends too

[GazetaBitcoin]

i blahed it for a reasons..

i blahed it because it was unrelated to the subject lines. it was as if you were trying to throw as many words as you can at a wall and see which one sticks.

Actually, it was. There were two subjects in parallel.

- at first, 1miau alleged that "when there are no rules, chaos will arise"
- from here, I tried to explain that, out from chaos, spontaneous order may arise:

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...

- from here another post followed, about the above mentioned spontaneous order:

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.

- and from here I made an association between spontaneous order and catallaxy:

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.

- and, since I mentioned also the praxeology, it was natural to define it, although it was not related to the subject; this is why I did not insist on talking about it:

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.

So, as you see, there was a logic between all subject lines. Perhaps it was too difficult to follow it, but it existed.

hr]

I'm not convinced that has much, if anything, to do with Bitcoin, though.  Order didn't just occur all by itself. [...]

Not spontaneity.  Pure incentive.

Perhaps reading the upper part of this post may help you understand the connection I had in my mind for saying that?