Search Mailing List Archives
[liberationtech] Bitcoin and The Public Function of Money
dk at telekommunisten.net
Mon Nov 5 06:52:12 PST 2012
On 05.11.2012 06:23, StealthMonger wrote:
> True, except that those functions are mostly not socially necessary.
This is well know to be false, and ridiculous. You yourself, could
probably not survive without the benefits provided by the state. I don't
mean you can't imagine yourself surviving in a Galt's Gultch fantasy
world, I mean in the actually-existing real world. And certainly you
realize that there are 6 billion people on the planet, and that any
large scale interruption in the socially necessary benefits provided by
the State is likely to lead to immense tragedy. I realize that many
"capitalist" and "green" anarchists don't care, since some view massive
death and collapse and the shining path to a Rothbardian or Zerzanian
> Rather, people feel morally entitled to them because that's what they
> have been taught. Instead of morally entitled, people ought to find
> accepting State benefits morally repugnant because it amounts to
> receiving stolen property.
And now we've returned to the real truth of your position, you view all
public goods as some kind of immoral benefit. You believe that we have
no responsibility for the health or others, for the children of others,
you believe that everything from education to personal safety to art and
culture to environmental justice should be carried out by privately
owned firms competing for revenue. Your religious faith in the market
mechanism means you see no possible downside to this
You believe that we owe each other nothing. To the vast majority of
people your vision of the future is a wretched distopia.
The truth is we are a social species, and our survival depends on
co-operation and sharing, from the very human needs that follow from
human frailty, care for the young and old, and sick, to the
infrastructure of large scale human civilization, to the needs of
stabilizing and counter balancing complex financial systems, we depend
very much on social functions, institutions and processes.
We are thoroughly interconnected with, and interdependent on each
other. And for virtually every one of us, except perhaps for
psychopaths, our sense of self and personal fulfillment is inseparable
from our social position and interactions and our satisfaction of doing
things for and with each other.
> Popular acceptance of the benefits is the prime mover of State power.
You must distinguish form from function makes to realize that to
achieve popular acceptance of non-state forms, we need non-State means
of providing these benefits. These benefits are not the "primary mover"
of State power, the State provides them because they are necessary for
the survival and continued productivity of workers. The primary mover of
State power is the wealth accumulation interests of the ruling class.
> As long as the
> State can fence the goods, it will continue to steal them.
Saying the State is "fencing" the goods implies that the State has a
revenue interest in providing benefits, as this is plainly false, it's
not much of an argument, just a pat statement.
>> ...the efficient market hypothesis is "one of the most remarkable
>> errors in the history of economic thought."
> Straw man. Efficient or not, free trade is by definition a peaceful,
> consensual relation between individuals, and there is nothing unkind
> or thoughtless about promoting it via Bitcoin.
Hardly a straw man, you are simply not willing to know that market
relations can also be coersive, involuntary, and violent and that the
fruits of exploitation can be exchanged in bitcoins, just as easily as
the fruits of peaceful social production.
>>> Resource starvation? Anonymous markets have thrived throughout
>>> history, and probably before.
>> Do you care to inform us of any period of history where markets
>> thrived while not supported and managed by non-market social
> There are even stories of warring tribes temporarily setting aside
> hostilities while they meet to catch up on trade, and then turning
> around to resume battle.
Which is an example of the market operating within social conditions
managed and supported by non-market institutions, actually quite a
heavily ritualized example. Your example is not even anonymous, as this
sort of trade was usually conducted by way of the "big man" of the
tribe. Try again?
More information about the liberationtech