Are Bitcoiners Neoliberals?

[HELP.org]

Bitcoin is the technology and users have many different political views. Do only marxist have cars? no.
The users of bitcoin have neoliberals, socialist, marxist, anarchist and even statist views.
See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=723537.0

Yes, anyone with any agenda can use Bitcoin.  what I am talking about are the people like Erik Vorhees, Roger Ver, Charlie Shrem, Stephanie Murphy, etc. who latched onto Bitcoin as way of promoting their agenda.  They often misrepresent Bitcoin when it fits their agenda because they are not rally promoting Bitcoin.  They think that their agenda is going to be "proven" if Bitcoin is successful. 

Take a look at that Bitcoin Bounty Hunter site.  The funniest part is posting "court documents" of the Bitcoinia lawsuit which consists of just a complaint.  It says Roger Ver, Jesse Powell, Jed McCaleb etc. are suing Amir Taaki, etc. for "breach of contract."  But if you read the complaint you can see NONE of the people suing have a copy of the contract but they claim if you get ahold of Amir he has a copy and that will prove their case.  So now he puts out a "bounty" because law enforcement is not doing their job.  How ridiculous can this get?  Who in their right mind would use financial services run by any of these people?

[bluemeanie1]

Bitcoin is the technology and users have many different political views. Do only marxist have cars? no.
The users of bitcoin have neoliberals, socialist, marxist, anarchist and even statist views.
See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=723537.0

Take a look at that Bitcoin Bounty Hunter site.  The funniest part is posting "court documents" of the Bitcoinia lawsuit which consists of just a complaint. 

where have I seen that before?

[Walter Rothbard]

They only interact with other people like themselves

Boy, if only that were true.  Unfortunately we are forced to live like everybody else, subject to the winner take all system that you prop up.

[bluemeanie1]

Bitcoin is the technology and users have many different political views. Do only marxist have cars? no.
The users of bitcoin have neoliberals, socialist, marxist, anarchist and even statist views.
See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=723537.0

Yes, anyone with any agenda can use Bitcoin.  what I am talking about are the people like Erik Vorhees, Roger Ver, Charlie Shrem, Stephanie Murphy, etc. who latched onto Bitcoin as way of promoting their agenda.  They often misrepresent Bitcoin when it fits their agenda because they are not rally promoting Bitcoin.  They think that their agenda is going to be "proven" if Bitcoin is successful. 

Take a look at that Bitcoin Bounty Hunter site.  The funniest part is posting "court documents" of the Bitcoinia lawsuit which consists of just a complaint.  It says Roger Ver, Jesse Powell, Jed McCaleb etc. are suing Amir Taaki, etc. for "breach of contract."  But if you read the complaint you can see NONE of the people suing have a copy of the contract but they claim if you get ahold of Amir he has a copy and that will prove their case.  So now he puts out a "bounty" because law enforcement is not doing their job.  How ridiculous can this get?  Who in their right mind would use financial services run by any of these people?

The simple fact is that this group(perhaps several groups) operate under some vague ethos referred to by different names(libertarianism, cryptoanarchy).  It quickly devolves into extortion, harassment, death threats, etc.  You can't do business without a justice system.  What these people are is a mafia.  They will quickly find themselves surrounded by hardened criminals and doing things that are strictly immoral, where they may have started far more innocently.  I think Ross Ulbricht set the mold here.

This very same group you delineate is calling Ross a hero.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkRhBOZSw38

To me Panama doesn't really sound so glorious.  Maybe you get a bigger house and lots of money- but I'll take my little house and a simpler life in America any day.

[Walter Rothbard]

The simple fact is that this group(perhaps several groups) operate under some vague ethos referred to by different names(libertarianism, cryptoanarchy).  It quickly devolves into extortion, harassment, death threats, etc.  You can't do business without a justice system.

I don't think anyone's proposing that, but I do think they are proposing that a justice system established only based on force from the majority will not be moral.

They will quickly find themselves surrounded by hardened criminals and doing things that are strictly immoral, where they may have started far more innocently.

How many years do I have to go before I start seeing that?  I don't think I know any hardened criminals, and I don't think I'm doing anything immoral.  I don't even use the drugs I advocate legalizing, unless you count sudafed.

[bluemeanie1]

How many years do I have to go before I start seeing that?  I don't think I know any hardened criminals, and I don't think I'm doing anything immoral.  I don't even use the drugs I advocate legalizing, unless you count sudafed.

and what country do you live in?

[turvarya]

If you want to hear the difference between a reasonable person and a "Bitcoin Wing Nut" listen to Preston Byrne and Stephanie on Let's Talk Bitcoin

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-137-eye-of-the-beholder

He makes perfect sense and then look at all the comments of the story.  They claim he is a State lover, not  libertarian, and on and on.  All he did was describe reality (and I usually can't stand lawyers).  I could not find one valid objection to what he said or any explanation as to why he would be wrong for the position he is in.  

All the regulations have to do with interfacing Bitcoin with the legacy system that these people say they want eliminated so why should they care?  The proposed regs are for people that still want to use banks.  Not that I agree with the proposed regs but that is what they are.  
 

I often thought the same, when I am listening to LTB. Sometimes I am not paying much attention, when Stephanie is talking.

Btw. I'd describe my self as a socialist.

[Krona Rev]

I'm curious if there is evidence of supposed "neoliberals" calling themselves "neoliberals" or if this is a term primarily used by the opponents of alleged "neoliberals."

In Germany, I've only heard the term applied (always negatively) to the FDP, the sort of mainstream "liberal"/"libertarian" party. The FDP is quite hated right now, but I attribute this to some oddities in German thinking. Germans seem to think the opposite of socialism is...national socialism. Since "neoliberals" aren't socialists, they are, by some skewed thinking, somewhere down the road to national socialism. It's quite odd. My solution is to not take people who think this way very seriously.

I generally get the feeling when people apply a "neo" prefix to something they don't like (e.g., "neoconservative" or "neoliberal"), it's meant to suggest "neonazi" without saying it. It's a kind of neogodwinism.

In response to the question "Are Bitcoiners Neoliberals?" I decided to do some quick reading.

A quick scan of the Wikipedia page on neoliberalism says the term was coined by a German, Alexander Rüstow, in 1938. It was to distinguish them from "classical liberalism" (as advocated by von Mises and Hayek) because neoliberals advocated state intervention. In fact, Rüstow is considered one of the fathers of the "Social Market Economy" (again, according to Wikipedia, so research primary sources if you want more reliable information). The "Social Market Economy" doesn't sound anything like what the allegedly "neoliberal" bitcoiners advocate.

The Wikipedia page for "neoliberalism" also says this: "According to Boas and Gans-Morse the term neoliberalism is nowadays mainly used by critics as a pejorative term."

Without looking into it further, I would conclude two things:

1. Using the term in its original historical sense, the bitcoiners to which some of you are referring are not "neoliberals" because they don't advocate state intervention in economic affairs. They could possibly be called "classical liberals."

2. Using the term in its modern, pejorative sense, the bitcoiners to which some of you are referring are "neoliberals" because you want to insult them.

[bluemeanie1]

If you want to hear the difference between a reasonable person and a "Bitcoin Wing Nut" listen to Preston Byrne and Stephanie on Let's Talk Bitcoin

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-137-eye-of-the-beholder

He makes perfect sense and then look at all the comments of the story.  They claim he is a State lover, not  libertarian, and on and on.  All he did was describe reality (and I usually can't stand lawyers).  I could not find one valid objection to what he said or any explanation as to why he would be wrong for the position he is in.  

All the regulations have to do with interfacing Bitcoin with the legacy system that these people say they want eliminated so why should they care?  The proposed regs are for people that still want to use banks.  Not that I agree with the proposed regs but that is what they are.  
 

I often thought the same, when I am listening to LTB. Sometimes I am not paying much attention, when Stephanie is listening.

Pierre Rochard of the Satoshi Nakamoto institute suggested they are a Bitcoin 2.0 pumper.

[bluemeanie1]

Guten Tag,

I'm curious if there is evidence of supposed "neoliberals" calling themselves "neoliberals" or if this is a term primarily used by the opponents of alleged "neoliberals."

a good observation.  I pointed out elsewhere that the site the quote came from might be described as Chomskian marxist.

In Germany, I've only heard the term applied (always negatively) to the FDP, the sort of mainstream "liberal"/"libertarian" party. The FDP is quite hated right now, but I attribute this to some oddities in German thinking. Germans seem to think the opposite of socialism is...national socialism. Since "neoliberals" aren't socialists, they are, by some skewed thinking, somewhere down the road to national socialism. It's quite odd. My solution is to not take people who think this way very seriously.

a good book: "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change" by Jonah Goldberg

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

I generally get the feeling when people apply a "neo" prefix to something they don't like (e.g., "neoconservative" or "neoliberal"), it's meant to suggest "neonazi" without saying it. It's a kind of neogodwinism.

In response to the question "Are Bitcoiners Neoliberals?" I decided to do some quick reading.

A quick scan of the Wikipedia page on neoliberalism says the term was coined by a German, Alexander Rüstow, in 1938. It was to distinguish them from "classical liberalism" (as advocated by von Mises and Hayek) because neoliberals advocated state intervention. In fact, Rüstow is considered one of the fathers of the "Social Market Economy" (again, according to Wikipedia, so research primary sources if you want more reliable information). The "Social Market Economy" doesn't sound anything like what the allegedly "neoliberal" bitcoiners advocate.

a lot of free market ideas in America can be traced to the region of Germany(which had different political boundaries at the time).  Here we have the 'Austrian Economics' school, Murray Rothbard being one of it's proponents.  The history here gets fairly complex but to summarize, Roosevelt who brought The New Deal(early American Socialism) was also the president who fought Hitler.

The Wikipedia page for "neoliberalism" also says this: "According to Boas and Gans-Morse the term neoliberalism is nowadays mainly used by critics as a pejorative term."

Without looking into it further, I would conclude two things:

1. Using the term in its original historical sense, the bitcoiners to which some of you are referring are not "neoliberals" because they don't advocate state intervention in economic affairs. They could possibly be called "classical liberals."

2. Using the term in its modern, pejorative sense, the bitcoiners to which some of you are referring are "neoliberals" because you want to insult them.

The current term noeliberalism refers to political movements that want to break down national sovereignty, freely trade and commodify natural resources, labor, and such.  In that sense they are closely quartered with anarchists(that much is obvious to anyone who reads this board).  Marxism does admittedly serve a scholar well in these cases because he describes this sort of activity perfectly, whereas the 'libertarian' types view all the negatives as temporary collateral costs on the journey to Ayn Randian Utopia(which never arrives, sounds like Marxism).  "Neoliberalism" is often used in a perjorative sense, but also it is a good description of this political outlook and is a good signifier for further research.  These aren't new ideas and 'thought leaders' like Voorhees try to present them as though they are new and novel.  The cryptokiddies gush with excitement at the thought that they won't have to answer to 'the man' anymore.  They may have to answer to Erik Voorhees though.

Grüß, -bm

[Krona Rev]

a good book: "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change" by Jonah Goldberg

I read the Goldberg book years ago, and I agree it's good. More people should read it.

The current term noeliberalism refers to political movements that want to break down national sovereignty, freely trade and commodify natural resources, labor, and such. 

A word can be used however people want to use it. I agree opponents of those ideas tend to use "neoliberalism" to refer to them. I just don't think advocates of the ideas use the term "neoliberalism" that way.

Suppose I started using the term "neostatist" to refer to people who hold lots of very mainstream beliefs about government. Are most people suddenly "neostatists"? A lot of disagreements could be avoided by giving neutral names to things. I suppose someone could give the definition they intend and then hash it and we could use the base58 representation of the hash.

Take your description "political movements that want to break down national sovereignty, freely trade and commodify natural resources, labor, and such."

Taking the sha256 and putting it in base58 we get: BDaofyahyEpS7E9fCaoFkbMitFFv8WGToys1gBRrt9Ts

We could now ask: Do Bitcoiners believe in BDaofyahyEpS7E9fCaoFkbMitFFv8WGToys1gBRrt9Ts?

It sounds bizarre and neutral. The term "neoliberal" doesn't sound neutral. It sounds negative (by design).

Tschüs!

[practicaldreamer]

You'll see people from all over the political spectrum, this is a technology.

This is undoubtedly true - as this forum itself is a testament to.

However, Amir Taaki talks a lot about how the technology is effectively embued/laiden with the values held by those that have coded it. I certainly think he has a point re. the subtle shifts in direction that BTC may or may not take. The current thread about the hard fork kind of illustrates this (if i understand it correctly)

But I'm at a loss really to understand the core values that lay behind bit coin/the block chain.

 I guess you could say that its "values" will be revealed in its practical usage - and that the nature of its usage depends largely upon how the code is subsequently developed.


If I were pushed I would have to say that, if anything, BTC has more in common with communitarianism than, say, neo liberalism - wether that be in its open source development, communities here like Bitcointalk, or in the (decentralised) nature of the protocol itself.

But its an academic point really - the bitcoin world itself is a broad church and so it should be.

[bluemeanie1]

Moin moin,

Well if you want to learn about something or someone, you can

 1) listen to that person's opponents,

 2) listen to those that praise that person

 3) listen to what that person says him/herself.

So the same goes for Neoliberalism.  You're not going to get the complete picture of a philosophy by reading Murry Rothbard or Ayn Rand.

btw- Germans do have some of the best economic thinking in the world at the present.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism

re. Erik, some accuse me here of attacking him.  That's not true, although he has made unwarranted accusations towards BM in the past.  Erik is an outspoken 'leader' and naturally you can expect to be criticized.  You can't start complaining everyone is attacking you if you volunteer to take a public role.

[bluemeanie1]

You'll see people from all over the political spectrum, this is a technology.

If I were pushed I would have to say that, if anything, BTC has more in common with communitarianism than, say, neo liberalism - wether that be in its open source development, communities here like Bitcointalk, or in the (decentralised) nature of the protocol itself.

some factions might be described this way.  This isn't the Voorhees/Ver coalition though, they are hard-core libertarian/anarchist.

I have read a bit of Amitai Etzioni.

[Krona Rev]

Wait. I think ordoliberalism refers exactly to what neoliberalism originally meant! Maybe they should be called neo-ordos. Ordiots would be to negative.

Regarding Voorhees. I'm curious. Is there evidence that Voorhees presents what I would call liberatarianism and you would call neoliberalism as "new ideas"?

Bitcoin can be very fairly called a "new idea", but the ideas of individual liberty have a long history and my impression of libertarians is that most of them learn something of this long history. I mean, at least people tend to know who von Mises, Hayek, Friedman and Rothbard were. They also know Ayn Rand, but that leads to lots more infighting. Even earlier there were influences from Lysander Spooner to Rose Wilder Lane that get talked about. Go to a libertarian meeting. They'd rather bore you with history than pretend all their ideas are new. But get ready for arguments. Libertarians always discuss until they find an area where they disagree. And there's always an area where they disagree with each other.

[bluemeanie1]

Wait. I think ordoliberalism refers exactly to what neoliberalism originally meant! Maybe they should be called neo-ordos. Ordiots would be to negative.

Germans just love Ordnung dont they?

"Ordnung ist das halbe Leben"

Regarding Voorhees. I'm curious. Is there evidence that Voorhees presents what I would call liberatarianism and you would call neoliberalism as "new ideas"?

Read his tweets.  It's over-the-top anarcho-capitalism.

Bitcoin can be very fairly called a "new idea", but the ideas of individual liberty have a long history and my impression of libertarians is that most of them learn something of this long history. I mean, at least people tend to know who von Mises, Hayek, Friedman and Rothbard were. They also know Ayn Rand, but that leads to lots more infighting. Even earlier there were influences from Lysander Spooner to Rose Wilder Lane that get talked about. Go to a libertarian meeting. They'd rather bore you with history than pretend all their ideas are new. But get ready for arguments. Libertarians always discuss until they find an area where they disagree. And there's always an area where they disagree with each other.

Yes it's like 'herding cats'.  The are by nature disagreeable people.

also see "The Wörgl Experiment", Community Currency theorists worship this incident in history and insinuate that had we accepted what was learned at Wörgl, we never would have had WWII.  They are god-tier Godwinists.  I think they get a bit excessive about this particular moment and use this to parade around other ideas such as Demurrage.  We had, and still have, quite a few community currencies here in the US.

And given that I think a lot of the free market ideas and people ended up in America because they were pushed out by the Nationalist Socialists(Nazi).

and btw- not sure why were knocking Preston Byrne.  He wrote some great articles about BitShares.

[Krona Rev]

Regarding Voorhees. I'm curious. Is there evidence that Voorhees presents what I would call liberatarianism and you would call neoliberalism as "new ideas"?

Read his tweets.  It's over-the-top anarcho-capitalism.

I think we're miscommunicating somehow. Anarcho-capitalism also isn't a new idea. If he has a tweet where he says "Hey everyone, look at my great new idea of anarcho-capitalism/pure libertarianism/...!" then that would be evidence that he's presenting it as a new idea.

Anyway, gotta go; nice talking to you. I hope I didn't come off like I was claiming new ideas as my own...except words as base58 of sha256 of definition thing. I totally invented that.

[Dissonance]

isn't neo-liberals just classical liberals like our founding fathers?

[bluemeanie1]

isn't neo-liberals just classical liberals like our founding fathers?

fairly distant concepts.  I believe they refer to that as 'Paleoliberal'.

[katlogic]

Are Bitcoiners Neoliberals?

Yes.

This debate always derails into left vs right, 80 who own 20% vs 20 who own 80%. Such is the nature of human condition until post-scarcity becomes a thing. More interesting is debate how can we fix it (no Bitcoin itself can not, if the GINI of bitcoin is any indication, on the contrary).

As for the "death to the gubbermint" argument, ask people in sub-saharan africa how well it works for them.

Anarcho-syndicalism itself is a deceptive construct. While agent-based game theory is arguably rather vague approximation of sociology, its the closest thing to scientific method to guess behaviour of crowds (I'd recommend you sugarscape if you're interested in agent models of government-free capitalism).

There is a strong indication that the group benefits only if all, the 100% play by the rules. Libertarian tit-for-tat yields even worse outcome than agents randomly assigned to bins of kinship (which self-selects into 20/80 as per pareto much later in the sim compared to tit-for-tat).