Are Bitcoiners Neoliberals?

[bluemeanie1]

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).

It's mostly impossible to measure.  You can't just use accounts because one person may be holding many accounts.  To measure GINI you need a reliable way to measure WHO owns which accounts.

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

commonly, the "libertarians" are highly privileged white American males who really have no clue how good they have it.  They take America and civilization for granted.  As you say, it's not hard to live the libertarian dream in Mogadishu.

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).

I've seen things like this before but I'll have a look.  I'm familiar with basic Game Theory.

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).

curious points,

thx.  -bm

[katlogic]

It's mostly impossible to measure.  You can't just use accounts because one person may be holding many accounts.  To measure GINI you need a reliable way to measure WHO owns which accounts.

I used the stats zhoutong published. I wonder if some wallet/exchange published more recent numbers since then.

commonly, the "libertarians" are highly privileged white American males who really have no clue how good they have it.  They take America and civilization for granted.  As you say, it's not hard to live the libertarian dream in Mogadishu.

To be fair, kleptocracy (Eastern europe here :) is just failure of (cultural) morals. To me, when someone says "neocon/neoliberal", I imagine ruthless robber baron capitalist who truly believes that market is end-all solution to everything, ethics be damned. Surprisingly, significant amount of those "white straight male reddit fedora libertarians who love to shoot guns" appear to not discard basic human decency in their dogma. However truly free markets are in contradiction with that - having no "silly morals" is very effective competetive edge after all.

This cognitive dissonance is my main problem with the ideology, I'd love to hear how one is supposed to address it, short of brainwashing people who are supposed to think for themselves with christian values.

[bluemeanie1]

It's mostly impossible to measure.  You can't just use accounts because one person may be holding many accounts.  To measure GINI you need a reliable way to measure WHO owns which accounts.

I used the stats zhoutong published. I wonder if some wallet/exchange published more recent numbers since then.

commonly, the "libertarians" are highly privileged white American males who really have no clue how good they have it.  They take America and civilization for granted.  As you say, it's not hard to live the libertarian dream in Mogadishu.

To be fair, kleptocracy (Eastern europe here is just failure of (cultural) morals. To me, when someone says "neocon/neoliberal", I imagine ruthless robber baron capitalist who truly believes that market is end-all solution to everything, ethics be damned. Surprisingly, significant amount of those "white straight male reddit fedora libertarians who love to shoot guns" appear to not discard basic human decency in their dogma. However truly free markets are in contradiction with that - cheating someone burdened with something silly as "morals" is very effective competetive edge after all.

mostly, it's a philosophy that lives entirely on the Internet.  You'll find it's greatest outspoken proponents are anons on twitter or random forums like this.  Few people would confess such beliefs to their mother, that's for sure.  It's a sort of attitude that builds up over time.   I think a lot of these people, especially on here dont really transition their psychological state from playing violent video games to interacting on these forums.  They say and do things they would never dream of in 'real life'.  Sometimes I even think Ulbricht lost touch with reality at some point.  People have said he spent all day on his laptop and never spoke with anyone.

If you get to know any of these cryptokids on here, it's a pretty typical profile.  Young, no social life, loves video games, marginally employed, etc.  They encounter another player-character in the forum video game that angers them, the solution is throw a grenade or fire rocket launchers.  They just don't understand that theyre in public and they're accountable for their actions.

You've also got a class of people, typically from Eastern Europe/Soviet rim regions who are paid trolls.  There is practically no laws against internet abuses so they know they can do what they please- you'll find a lot of the really odious trolls seems to emanate from the Transnistria region.

[Walter Rothbard]

To me, when someone says "neocon/neoliberal", I imagine ruthless robber baron capitalist who truly believes that market is end-all solution to everything, ethics be damned. Surprisingly, significant amount of those "white straight male reddit fedora libertarians who love to shoot guns" appear to not discard basic human decency in their dogma.

Maybe real people aren't like caricatures.

This cognitive dissonance is my main problem with the ideology,

I don't think I have any cognitive dissonance.  If I were to get what I want and what I think should be in the world by forcing other people to cooperate with my plans, that would cause cognitive dissonance for me.

So, I believe in helping the poor, so I do it.  I don't employ schemes to make other people do it.  I don't believe in any current wars, so I expect people who do believe in them to pay for them themselves.

[Walter Rothbard]

mostly, it's a philosophy that lives entirely on the Internet.  You'll find it's greatest outspoken proponents are anons on twitter or random forums like this.  Few people would confess such beliefs to their mother, that's for sure.  It's a sort of attitude that builds up over time.   I think a lot of these people, especially on here dont really transition their psychological state from playing violent video games to interacting on these forums.  They say and do things they would never dream of in 'real life'.  Sometimes I even think Ulbricht lost touch with reality at some point.  People have said he spent all day on his laptop and never spoke with anyone.

If you get to know any of these cryptokids on here, it's a pretty typical profile.  Young, no social life, loves video games, marginally employed, etc.  They encounter another player-character in the forum video game that angers them, the solution is throw a grenade or fire rocket launchers.  They just don't understand that theyre in public and they're accountable for their actions.

You talk pretty authoritatively about people who are complete strangers on the internet, people you don't know.  I'm a libertarian anarchist, and you don't know anything about me.  I don't play violent video games, you don't know which of my parents I've discussed my political views with or if my parents are even alive, I suspect that I am older than you (you certainly trash talk people like a young disrespectful person), and you have no idea what I do for entertainment in my life.

And I'm just one of many.

Who are you to say that libertarians are internet dwellers who have no life?  How would you know?

You aren't claiming to have psychic powers, are you?

[HELP.org]

mostly, it's a philosophy that lives entirely on the Internet.  You'll find it's greatest outspoken proponents are anons on twitter or random forums like this.  Few people would confess such beliefs to their mother, that's for sure.  It's a sort of attitude that builds up over time.   I think a lot of these people, especially on here dont really transition their psychological state from playing violent video games to interacting on these forums.  They say and do things they would never dream of in 'real life'.  Sometimes I even think Ulbricht lost touch with reality at some point.  People have said he spent all day on his laptop and never spoke with anyone.

If you get to know any of these cryptokids on here, it's a pretty typical profile.  Young, no social life, loves video games, marginally employed, etc.  They encounter another player-character in the forum video game that angers them, the solution is throw a grenade or fire rocket launchers.  They just don't understand that theyre in public and they're accountable for their actions.

That is exactly the impression I got after spending 5 minutes on here.  One of the first posts I saw was this big long explanation about Bitcoin and how I needed to be a member of World of Warcraft and how I needed to read Vorhees' blog to understand what Bitcoin is.  I was thinking, "what the hell is this?"  Most people would end their interest in Bitcoin right there.  I was able to poke through all that and look at the technology but that is a difficult bridge to cross.  

Theymos had a tremendous opportunity with this forum and look what he has done.  People selling accounts, endless scams, etc.  If you read his stuff about things like GLBSE he talks about virtual companies and I have often said he sounds like he lives his life in a video game.  Almost nothing that goes on in this forum happens in the real world.  One of these clowns advocated breaking into the FBI computers because he said they were too stupid to keep the Silk Road bitcoins secure.  Guess where the guy works?  For the State of Maryland.  This stuff is beyond ridiculous.  These people think that because they promoted Bitcoin early on that they know more than the rest of the world or that somehow everybody owes them something.

I also noticed that many here are not up on things outside of video games and reddit.  It was comical to watch Ver and Vorhees say how great their honey badger billboard was.  When people pointed out almost nobody in the general public will understand it they argued the opposite.  

I also did a Bitcoin public event once at the Philly Punk Rock Flea market.  Most of the Bitcoin Philly group would not come because I refused to allow them to hand out "Bitcoin Not Bombs" stuff at my table.  I talked to a large number of people who mostly never heard of Bitcoin.  Not a single person asked about collapsing banks, ending wars, replacing the dollar, or any of the other nonsense you see here on a daily basis.  Just try it yourself.

I retired from my job as a federal employee of 27 years for the FAA..  I worked on research of explosives and weapons detection systems and then on information security requirements for large FAA systems.  While I was a researcher rather than regulator I worked in the system for a long time, including 9 years in Washington, DC.  I also participated in many of these public comment things involving privacy and I testified at a few FTC workshops such as the first couple "spam summits" back in the late 90's.  I can say with absolute certainty that comments like Erik Vorhees makes about the Bitlicense and the motives of regulators is completely wrong and his meme-based arguments are going to be disregarded.  He has a few correct points here and there but his arguments don't fit together.  Patrick Murck is pretty good be he still works for the Foundation and Vessenes.  Jerry Brito and Coincenter.org is the place to watch because he is good and I think he is independent or at least more independent than Murck.  




 

[katlogic]

Maybe real people aren't like caricatures.

Indeed, the neo* prefix is a generalization too broad.

This cognitive dissonance is my main problem with the ideology,

I don't think I have any cognitive dissonance.  If I were to get what I want and what I think should be in the world by forcing other people to cooperate with my plans, that would cause cognitive dissonance for me.

So, I believe in helping the poor, so I do it.  I don't employ schemes to make other people do it.  I don't believe in any current wars, so I expect people who do believe in them to pay for them themselves.

Let's keep it to economics. The dissonance I perceive is essentialy austrian vs keynesian money. Good example is usury - the more is wealth distribution skewed, the more society starts to resemble slavery, as the poor are left with no choice other than to borrow. Later on, it gets to the point that the wealthy spend less than the interest they're owed. Sugarscape mentioned earlier allows sugar lending, rent-seeking is the end game. Poor masses are caught in the hamster wheel.

Now, libertarians just shrug their shoulders "should not have borrowed if they can't utilize the capital" and that's true to an extent, but they completely dismiss the perspective of the poor - the game was rigged from the start (rich were rich from the beggining, and the poor just got poorer). Poor one getting lucky and escaping the trap, as well a wealthy one becoming poor because of bad investments is more of an exception, rather than rule. tl;dr: The term old money exists for a reason.

Leftism/marxism in the form of keynesian money and taxation of the rich is intended to level the playing field. Libertarians call bloody murder over this. I call it return to common ownership. The fact that governments are notoriously bad at it and can't counter the pressure of the bag holders in current fiat monetary system is just how it is now, but in some places (sweden, canada) it used to work fairly well until recently.
 
Finally, it should be noted that most governments actually don't indulge in wars. I tend to generalize, hence no tunnel vision on the US.

[1echo]

we are all aobut dropping taxes

[Alonzo Ewing]

"Neoliberal" is a phony made-up word by people who want to limit others' choices.  It's not a valid descriptor of anything other than, "I wish people had less say in what they do with their stuff".

[Honeypot]

Bitcoiners are not political, no matter how much they dream of it.

They are just delusional.

[red-jet]

Labeling is dangerous and very often leads to strawman arguements.

It's not like every one is equipped with a PGP key to understand exactly what you mean. There is a world of subversion out there that challenges even the core treatments of 'main' stream - ie the essentially 10 degree to the left or 10 degree right 'modern liberalism' that dominates (and some would say nose dived the West's) position.

For me to adopt a label is, in my opinion, only going to open me to a series of critics. Everyones a critic.

I like BTC - I seen it way back in 2008 at $11 - shuda, wouda, couda - but whats been fascinating to me is that the way the market has payed out.

***deep apologies for any derailment of thread*** but does the fact that 70% of of BTC has never been traded concern those from all ideologies?

Personally I'm a humanist, a trans-humanist - although I think it may not be the optimum state for our species. Evolution is an incredibly, effective, but generationally, default. It was never designed for Moore's Law or the singularity.

I work 2.5 jobs, I'm a loving father, I believe in considerably more than the 'eye' can see, i take Modafinial. I have a good life. How could a label benefit me?

[DumbFruit]

I retired from my job as a federal employee of 27 years for the FAA..  I worked on research of explosives and weapons detection systems and then on information security requirements for large FAA systems.  While I was a researcher rather than regulator I worked in the system for a long time, including 9 years in Washington, DC...

It's no wonder that you're incredibly brainwashed. It's amazing how the closer you get to the government coffers the more defensive people become of government's existence.

Except it's not amazing at all.

I am an anarchist, strictly speaking, though because of the incredible decay of the word I need to say "Anarcho-Capitalist".

The common thread throughout these posts is that everybody that "opposes" the Anarcho-Capitalist position (As the OP is a giant straw man, supported by almost nobody.) will just say that we have no arguments and just leave it at that.

Oh you don't see the connection between currency and war? We must just be stupid. Don't bother reading any of the books or papers written and freely available at the Mises institute. After all, we don't have arguments, so why bother reading anything we have to say? Inflation during wartime; Totally unheard of!

Charity can't be accomplished through charity, and we're just suppose to take your word on that. Listening to you people you would think there are no such things as private charities; That pretty much everyone in the world will only give of their income with a gun at their head. We don't have any arguments against that of course, because you say so.

Oh and the roads and public utilities! Lord knows we haven't even considered this issue before! Boy, you have us dead to rights. Once we don't have a State, everyone will just flop around on the floor like fish out of water until they die, since they don't have any supreme overlords to tell them how to get these things done. We don't have any arguments after all, you've told us so.

If the extraordinarily thick sarcasm somehow missed your attention; Every single topic you've mentioned, in which you're frustrated with the Anarcho-Capitalists lack of defense, has been thoroughly defended time and time again and I've yet to see any serious effort on your part, or anyone else on this thread, of dealing with our actual arguments.

To answer the OP... pretty much no one is a "Neo-Liberal" by that description.

I imagine ruthless robber baron capitalist who truly believes that market is end-all solution to everything, ethics be damned.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Robber-Barons-Business/dp/0963020315

[HELP.org]

I retired from my job as a federal employee of 27 years for the FAA..  I worked on research of explosives and weapons detection systems and then on information security requirements for large FAA systems.  While I was a researcher rather than regulator I worked in the system for a long time, including 9 years in Washington, DC...

It's no wonder that you're incredibly brainwashed. It's amazing how the closer you get to the government coffers the more defensive people become of government's existence.

...

This is the kind of total nonsense you get from the pseudo-liberals.  Anyone who points out flaws in their argument is working for "the man."  I could not wait to get out of that job and if I had to sit through one more useless staff meeting I would have gone nuts.  I called in sick my very last day and I mailed my stuff in because I didn't want to sit there one more day.  I think 30% of the FAA can be eliminated and nobody would notice.  However, there are some very smart people there and most people want them to provide the services they perform.  I did research for explosives/weapons detection systems and we sometimes did airport tests.  I ran into all kinds of brilliant researchers with the FAA, Sandia Nation Labs, etc. 

I can assure you the vast majority of people want more security and more intrusive searches and people don't wantgovernments eliminated as you claim with your hyperbole.  You are one who is brainwashed because you get your info from internet discussion boards and meme's and you don't interact with the public at large.  I live in New Jersey and many people here want the government to do everything for them.  People in my town see a candy wrapper on the beach and they want the government to send out a helicopter to pick it up.  In any case I made enough on my side Internet businesses so I don't have to work anymore and I can just do Bitcoin all day.  I don't miss Washington, DC ... except for the 930 Club.

It is funny that you claim the arguments have been "thoroughly defended."  How is that?  Posting stuff to reddit? That is comical.  The arguments are not totally wrong, they are just so over-the-top that the exaggerations make the whole thing sound ridiculous.  Government is too big and too intrusive in people's lives but it does not follow that everybody wants government eliminated, that everyone is going to switch to Bitcoin because of it, that people want the Silk Road guy released if he is guilty, and that this whole process of using Bitcoin will end wars.

[DumbFruit]

Anyone who points out flaws in their argument is working for "the man."

What flaws?
You clearly were working for "the man", that isn't in dispute. I was pointing out that people that work for "the man" are unsurprisingly also defensive of "the man". Part of it is selection bias, but I'm sure a large part of it is also social conditioning. Not to mention, you know, getting paid to keep your criticisms of the ethics of the system you work for to yourself, and to vote for the continuation of that teat...

It is funny that you claim the arguments have been "thoroughly defended."  How is that?

Do you really want to know? I don't think you do. Evidence suggests you just want to spend your time telling us who we are and what our positions are.

You are one who is brainwashed because you get your info from internet discussion boards and meme's and you don't interact with the public at large.

Oh do I? Tell me more about myself.

Government is too big and too intrusive in people's lives but it does not follow that everybody wants government eliminated...

Who says that? Anarcho-Capitalists are not in the business of telling everybody else what they want.

...everyone is going to switch to Bitcoin because of it...

People tend to use money that best meets their needs.

...that people want the Silk Road guy released if he is guilty...

Guilty of what?

...and that this whole process of using Bitcoin will end wars.

Bitcoin makes funding war difficult because it is immune to inflation. It does not "end all wars".

[Beliathon]

"Neoliberal" is a phony made-up word by people who want to limit others' choices.

Nope, it's not. Read more books.

[DumbFruit]

Books are not averse to made up words...

That's like saying, "English as She is Spoke" is an improvement on the English language because it is in fact a book. A popular book, even.

[KawalGrover]

No, they are just Neo(s) that have taken the red pill. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill

[Walter Rothbard]

"Neoliberal" is a phony made-up word by people who want to limit others' choices.

Nope, it's not. Read more books.

Are the people on that book cover neoliberals?  If so, I am definitely not a neoliberal.

[Krona Rev]

"Neoliberal" is a phony made-up word by people who want to limit others' choices.

Nope, it's not. Read more books.

Are the people on that book cover neoliberals?  If so, I am definitely not a neoliberal.

Ha! You win.

Of course "neoliberal" is a made up word. All words are made up. Neoliberal was (apparently) made up in 1938 by Alexander Rüstow. These original neoliberals advocated state intervention in the economy and wanted a word to distinguish them from "classical liberals" who advocated no/little state intervention in the economy. (I wrote all this yesterday, but as this thread seems to be going in circles anyway, why not type it again?) Later it became used as a pejorative term for anyone who advocates less government interference in markets.

I had the impression yesterday that "neoliberal" was being used to refer to pure libertarians/anarcho-capitalists. Now it seems to be being applied to Reagan and Thatcher. I doubt anyone is silly enough to believe Reagan or Thatcher were pure libertarians or anarcho-capitalists. Reaganites, Thatcherites, pure libertarians and anarcho-capitalists basically have one common property: there is a large group of people who hate all of them and need an insulting word to use against them. This is the way "neoliberal" is being used here. It's basically an N-word to throw at anyone they don't like.

[FUR11]

Well, I guess a lot of people in fact are. Also a lot of hardcore liberals (some may call them nutjobs) are attracted to Bitcoin because of its features and characteristics. The problem with neoliberalism is: It all looks nice and fair, but that's not how the world works. We need to help people who are in need, using taxes to build infrastructure for everyone for example leads us to a much better society. But this would go too far, this is a Bitcoin forum!