Libertarians -- where are they now?

[Who is John Galt?]

Your name really caught my attention... Have you read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged...? If yes, you have my sincere congratulations! May you convince other as well to read that impressive book...

If you didn't read it though then you should... especially for wearing this name At least, it is much more worth to read that book than some topics I found recently in Off-Topic board

It would be quite difficult for me to imagine how someone who has not read the book could accidentally choose such a name for himself on the forum. Especially since, as it seems to me, the question is important itself. The fact that in the end it turned out that John Galt appeared is not so significant. Like the question of who Satoshi Nakamoto is, the fact that this question has no definitive answer makes it more interesting for people to study the ideas that he formulated. Those who are interested in who is John Galt will somehow be able to find something interesting themselves. As I see it.

- from here, I tried to explain that, out from chaos, spontaneous order may arise

So, in fact, the states were formed, isn't it? People grouped and created some kind of order, which later grew into larger structures. After all, the main idea is not to abolish governments altogether, but that if society can do without state structures somewhere, then it would be good if there were no state structures there. Principles of reasonable necessity and sufficiency. (Yes, I skimmed through the topic, so I saw that the issue that everyone can see reasonableness in their own way has already been discussed. Accordingly, for this we have to develop a consensus, otherwise it will not work.)

[1714807697]

1714807697

[1714807697]

1714807697

[1714807697]

1714807697

[be.open]

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

Well, well, what do we have here - a roll call of the surviving cypherpunks? I don't like these flat and stereotyped labels, but the true spirit of anarchy is close to me and I'm here.

[thecodebear]

There is nothing anarchist or lawless about Bitcoin. Anarchy is simply a foolish ideology promoted by deranged minds which Satoshi, a smart man, has nothing to do with. Bitcoin has rules (which is strictly obeyed by the community) of which without, anyone can do whatever he/she want like the worthless and satanic anarchy seeks to enthroned.

I wonder who will survive if the World or humans bodies exist in anarchy. Same as Bitcoin, it will completely crumble if it's ruled by anarchy, choas or lawlessness.
By the way, the Bitcoin is already in good hands and will never succumb to cheap and worthless blackmail.

100%


Occasionally I'll listen to self-described crypto anarchists talk on like a bitcoin podcast or something and god, you couldn't find more naive people lol. One time there was even a discussion between the host and a anarchist and the host was asking about his anarchist views and the anarchist was asked what would happen once there are no rules or govt and the anarchist was like well groups of people will come together to make some rules and I'm like omg that is how govt starts!! Dude didn't even realize he was describing the beginning of creating a govt when talking about how anarchy would work lol. Anarchist described how anarchy won't work and will naturally lead to govt without even realizing it haha.

Anyway, Bitcoin and anarchy don't have anything to do with one another. The bitcoin anarchists are very naive just like all anarchists. Libertarians are a bit different as they still want govt just not much of it (kind of like how bitcoin provides governance of protocol rules but leaves everything else up to the implementation and the owners of the bitcoin), so bitcoin does jive with libertarians. I think libertarianism is a mix of good ideas (obviously individual liberty should have very very high precedence in society) and naivety, it's like anarchy-lite, though here in the US libertarians tend to just vote for corrupt republicans who want to gain as much power and control over the people as they possibly can so *most* self-described libertarians tend to support the opposite of what they claim they are for in this country at least.

More to the point, libertarians and anarchists are fairly rare (partially cuz most people aren't that naive and realize govt is necessary, partially because most people want govt to do stuff for society, partially because people tend to follow political parties which tend not to be libertarian because politicians generally want power instead of giving away power).

So naturally as Bitcoin expands into mass adoption the percentage of bitcoiners who are anarchists/libertarians is going to get very small as most people are those people. The anarchist/libertarian bitcoiners are the starry-eyed naive ideologues who think Bitcoin will destroy govts and fiat, and society will run on bitcoin. While most people are more realistic and like Bitcoin for protecting and growing their wealth, to have an escape hatch away from inflating fiat and the banking system, to be able to transact with anyone in the world in a sovereign way, and the general idea that bitcoin is a better money, is decentralized and therefore not corruptible/controllable/destroyable and is very likely the world's alternate currency for the digital age. You can be a strong bitcoiner with these realistic things, without the naive desire to destroy govts. Bitcoiners come from every part of the political spectrum, though totalitarians and communists would be against bitcoin because if you are a totalitarian you want total control, not liberty, and if you are communist you want no private property and everything shared equally. Though in real life communism has never actually existed as it has always just been subverted by the totalitarians who take advantage of the position communism sets up in society.



In summary, idealogical there is of course a bit of libertarianism in the construction of Bitcoin - taking money away from banks & govt - but most people aren't libertarians and certainly not anarchists, and bitcoin is for everyone, so these ideologues naturally become a smaller and smaller percentage of bitcoiners as bitcoin grows to a mass audience.

[be.open]

...

Anyway, Bitcoin and anarchy don't have anything to do with one another.

...

It seems you are making a common mistake, confusing anarchy with chaos, the absence of any rules and permissiveness. You will be closer to a correct understanding of anarchy if you view it as a capacity for self-organization. The very absence of the need for a third party as an external arbitrator and the peer-to-peer network architecture, which is actually a key feature of Bitcoin, is the true spirit of anarchy.

People have a frighteningly funny habit of forming an opinion about some phenomenon according to its most radical manifestations. In style, if anarchists don't need a government to function, then all anarchists are trying to blow up the White House and eat babies at night. In fact, more moderate forms of anarchy exist and are widespread. For example, if you have entered into an agreement with the nearest bakery to deliver you a fresh baguette in the morning - this direct agreement is an anarchic act. And if both parties to the contract fulfill their obligations in good faith, you will receive a fresh baguette for breakfast every morning without direct government intervention in your direct relationship with the bakery. Although, of course, if you pay the baker in fiat currency, the government will want to have a stake in your relationship in the form of bakery taxes.

[GazetaBitcoin]

It would be quite difficult for me to imagine how someone who has not read the book could accidentally choose such a name for himself on the forum. Especially since, as it seems to me, the question is important itself. The fact that in the end it turned out that John Galt appeared is not so significant. Like the question of who Satoshi Nakamoto is, the fact that this question has no definitive answer makes it more interesting for people to study the ideas that he formulated. Those who are interested in who is John Galt will somehow be able to find something interesting themselves. As I see it.

You said it so well! Indeed, inside Atlas Shrugged the apparition of John Galt was not that relevant for the narrative. The society was how it was, industrial companies were they way they were; corruption was still around... Similar, finding who Satoshi is won't change much things for Bitcoin or for the world. People will still use Bitcoin -- some will do it in worst possible manner; some will do it to free themselves from banks' and governments' oppression, as Satoshi envisioned...

Anyway, Bitcoin and anarchy don't have anything to do with one another.

It seems you are making a common mistake, confusing anarchy with chaos, the absence of any rules and permissiveness. You will be closer to a correct understanding of anarchy if you view it as a capacity for self-organization. The very absence of the need for a third party as an external arbitrator and the peer-to-peer network architecture, which is actually a key feature of Bitcoin, is the true spirit of anarchy. [...]

if anarchists don't need a government to function, then all anarchists are trying to blow up the White House and eat babies at night.

It's pointless to try to help people like cthecodebear or Ucy about the peaceful principles of anarchy and even more pointless to try to explain principles of crypto-anarchy. Tim May envisioned all these more than 30 years ago, but who reads his thoughts anymore...? (/s)

[darkv0rt3x]

We all Some still remember that Bitcoin was built based on a libertarian

While Bitcoin itself offer some privacy and freedom (permissionless/no censorship on valid transaction), i doubt there are many people who associate Bitcoin directly with liberty or libertarian value.

and crypto-anarchic ideology.

crypto-anarchic ideology? Are you sure it wasn't about Cypherpunk instead?

All conencted, I think

Timothy may, founder of crypto-anarchism movement and writer of its manifesto
https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_C._May

[GazetaBitcoin]

All conencted, I think

Timothy may, founder of crypto-anarchism movement and writer of its manifesto

Indeed, Cypherpunks and crypto-anarchism are connected. This is why I mentioned Tim May. Cypherpunks later created an email group where they debated about various topics, including software for private communication, politics or private money.

Satoshi himself was also a Cypherpunk and he shared crypto-anarchic and libertarian views. When he first introduced his prototype named Bitcoin, he did it within the Cypherpunks email group:

[buwaytress]

Don't think these "guys" have ever left. If we feel they're becoming less visible, it's not because they have (their whole point, typically, is to become less visible, no?), it's because we've stopped highlighting them and because those who've self-proclaimed have become less visible.

Then again, I only need to reopen my old Telegram groups and see all the very vocal (and visible) libertarians. Google is your friend/ally here...