State control isn't in itself oppressive or liberating. It all has to do with what kind of state controls that power. A well-functioning democracy, with a high level of participation and engagement, of subsidiarity, a free and diverse press? Or an oligopoly?
Look no further than state control of resources (in this case oil) in the two countries Norway and Venezuela. Same idea (state controls oil revenues) and two vastly different results. Because one is a democracy and the other bought public support by social programs spending to prop up his cronies' assault on government wealth.
So yes, ideal thing would be democratic control over capital and means of production. That's better than the current effectively oligarchic control where a small elite disproportionally holds unaccountable and opaque power. However, that's probably still better than an authoritarian government control.
Even democratic control can be concerning. If we want to maximize liberty and opportunity for the unfortunate and other minorities, giving 60% of the population the ability to favor themselves isn't great (see: tariffs, propping up housing prices, licensing, youth unemployment).
Democracy is the best system, but it still needs to be checked in different ways. Like individual rights. I'm open to the idea that currency competition could be interesting.
The US had currency competition relatively recently. It's normally described as a compatibility nightmare with each city issuing their own currency, but this perception is mostly based on a few extreme anecdotes. In practise, it worked somewhat well -- it had some benefits over the current system, but also some downsides.
One of the big differences here is that the "currency competition", particularly prior to the 1860s, was still trying to leverage the same basic semantics.
Both legitimate and questionable issuers were both claiming to supply "dollars", either directly or as an IOU for government-issued ones. There was consumer confusion baked right in, and probably to the great benefit of dishonest players. Some privately issued coins during the gold rush were a bit underweight, and a lot of private paper currency traded well below face value. A whole system of newsletters and discounting rates evolved to document exactly whose "dollars" were legitimate.
A new currency competition environment in 2021 has this sort of awareness built in. We're not in a newly cleared Homestead Act town dealing with stopgap measures for a lack of government issued currency. Anything but a FedCoin, even a Tether-style linked product, is clearly a private product and has a documented exchange rate. There isn't the same "information travels slowly in 1860" gaps to keep fraudulent products afloat.
I wonder how much of the interest in alternative currencies was based on hoping to exploit that sort of timing gap. The existing ones that don't have a built-in exploit system-- the "labour pool" ones denominated in hours, the "keep the money local" closed-loop currencies, don't seem to get huge momentum beyond local enthusiasts.
In a way, the current crypto FOMO mania smells of similar "trying to stay ahead of the information flow" plays. It's less that the issuers are hoping to pass 80 cents of gold as a dollar, but more speculators buying them at 40 cents, not really knowing what they're actually worth, but hoping they will settle at 80 some day. I wonder what happens once prices stabilize-- will interest fade away if they're back to competing on technical merit rather than the possibility of moonshot gains?
> A well-functioning democracy, with a high level of participation and engagement, of subsidiarity, a free and diverse press?
A well-regulated democracy isn't a good thing inherently. People can be awful and oppressive and this is why founding fathers rejected the idea of a democracy for US. We needed to put a republic with heavy constraints on the power of the govt precisely for that reason.
A great example of well regulated democracy which is terrible is India, because its founding fathers failed to control the power an average voter has, in India you can file a Public Interest Litigation [1] to the courts and get cryptocurrencies banned (without going through the legislative body).
Compared that to say Lee Kuan Yew. Not free press (can't criticize Lee Kuan Yew, protest freely, or strike freely), but you'll see Singapore work way better than say India.
Not to mention that whenever there is a power vacuum, for instance due to a failed state, what emerges isn't usually a scenario where individuals enjoy more freedoms but the opposite of that.
One of the things that I don't understand about libertarianism. You abolish the government. Then what? x) Do they think nobody is going to step up and grab that power vaccum?
> One of the things that I don't understand about libertarianism. You abolish the government. Then what? x) Do they think nobody is going to step up and grab that power vaccum?
I don't think there is a 'vacuum' because people have a need for a boot on their face, that first the King put his boot on people's faces (which is now how it worked, it was a huge mixed bag), and then the govt must do it or else a strongman might do it again.
There is no 'power vacuum', just a need for certain societal order. How that societal order is provided is where all these things happen. Monarchies are 'a' way to provide that societal order (for national defense and other things for that matter). Similarly Democracies are another one of that. Imagine if you went to 900 BC and tried to install a democracy to the people there? Would it really work out? Would people happily rejoice? Or they'd lose their democracy to a King soon enough?
There is an argument that can be made that political systems people embrace, depends upon the weapon systems available to them [1]. That, printing press gave us the age of enlightenment (and Protestantism, which is a reversion of Christianity to the original text, as opposed to the Papal church), but the invention of (widespread) guns gave us the Democracy. Because earlier only a lifetime of trained soldier could fight but now the training of a firearm (to become lethal) can be acquired in a very short amount of time.
As an anarchocapitalist, in 2000s we envisioned private companies providing that societal order which allows us to get away with governments, and this was heavily criticized that this would just cause private companies to just become govts. But in 2010s, I can say that blockchain (and yes I understand the unpopularity of the idea) have the capability to create that societal order. In 2000s we always envisioned [2] that the free market money would look like Amazon Bucks or Walmart Bucks, but now we realize that with cryptocurrencies we don't need a single company but a decentralized network to do the same job.
1. Weapons Systems and Political Stability, by Carrol Quigley
I see the whole idea of currency outside of government control to be entirely self defeating. Either you were already free enough to establish a currency which threatens the sovereign currency and thus the sovereignty of the government itself, in which case it seems that you didn't actually need a free currency to further establish your freedom, or you are under enough government control that this is impossible because they will use violence, espionage, or more subtle efforts to dismantle any effort to create a new currency. In any case, governments will use violence to secure their power.
In short, if cryptocurrencies threaten the power of violent governments, they will use violence to destroy cryptocurrencies. I don't see any way around it. Crypto is a technical solution to a social problem.
> In short, if cryptocurrencies threaten the power of violent governments, they will use violence to destroy cryptocurrencies.
There are smart contract based solutions like Ethereum. The latter offers to create system which fundamentally avoids disputes (like a lock, once you lock your home, you don't have to worry about someone easily just entering and squatting your home). Govts have no reason to oppose this, just like govt have no real reason to oppose people using Uber to hail rides.
Smart Contracts can also create dispute resolution mechanism which does a far better job than today's judicial system or the opaque arbitration system we have today. Again, govts don't have a problem with this.
You're confusing a smart contracts based blockchain platform with 'replace-the-dollar' cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Cash (not mentioning Bitcoin because they aim to replace Gold from your portfolio, and not the cash). These things threaten the govts, but the former category of technology doesn't.
Interesting but you're not answering any of the relevant questions. Without government, how are laws made, and how are they enforced? Answering these questions would give us an idea of the "societal order" that you are trying to create.
No, anarcho-capitalist libertarians are against government (not just against bad government, but against any government). For example, Rothbard writes
"The idea of a strictly limited government has proved to be utopian; some other, more radical means must be found to prevent the growth of the aggressive State. The libertarian system would meet this problem by scrapping the entire notion of creating a government." (The Libertarian Manifesto)
“Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists,[6] especially social anarchists,[7] but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists.[8][9] These libertarians seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.”
That said, anarcho-capitalist still wants the rule of law they just don’t want to call it government. Rothbard's anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow".[11] This legal code would recognize contracts, private property, self-ownership and tort law in keeping with the non-aggression principle.[11][12]
Anarchism and libertarianism originated in Europe in the 18th century as a branch of Socialism. What Americans call libertarianism is what the rest of the world calls anarcho-capitalism, a rather different ideology.
Anyway, Rothbard, a prominent anarcho-capitalist, states quite clearly that "libertarians" (i.e. anarcho-capitalists) are opposed to government, which contradicts your statement that anarcho-capitalists want "a strong government".
US libertarian party is based on small government but it very much wants a strong military. Some members are anarchists but the party is far more diverse than just that. So, referring to libertarianism in the US as identical to anarcho-capitalism isn’t accurate.
Anyway, I agree that Rothbard doesn’t want government, but I am saying he does want the rule of law which is a separation point from pure anarchism. How exactly you get a court system that’s not backed up by the threat of force without people simply ignoring it is a point of contention.
Look no further than state control of resources (in this case oil) in the two countries Norway and Venezuela. Same idea (state controls oil revenues) and two vastly different results. Because one is a democracy and the other bought public support by social programs spending to prop up his cronies' assault on government wealth.
So yes, ideal thing would be democratic control over capital and means of production. That's better than the current effectively oligarchic control where a small elite disproportionally holds unaccountable and opaque power. However, that's probably still better than an authoritarian government control.