pull down to refresh

Assuming Bitcoin is eating fiat which funds governments that enforces the law, does this imply theres a decent likelihood of a lawless near future?
The Premise: gov runs out of $
As we know a legal declaration has less enforceable power on bitcoin vs gold or land. And since the courts are funded by the state I believe it could effectively end as an institution when the money printer is gone. Code and capitalism might be the only "laws" that survive...
Speaking from a US perspective (though it should apply for similar countries like Germany, China et al) the government is going to run out of "value" even if they can print infinite paper. Tax as a percentage of GDP is capped by Laffer Curve and govs are already maxed out there.
Thanks to pure fiat inflation linked to the ability to issue infinite debt (for now) countries are currently able to extract more value from us plebians. However, when Bitcoin hyper-inflates fiat it also eliminates the ability of the government to issue debt. Since Cantillon banks are backstopped by the Fed the lack of money printer would probably take most of them down too.
(maybe they would have evolved into some form of stablecoin or bitcoinized lender by then. either way debt vs world assets would to be far lower than the 4:1 ratio of today)
Without the printer or ability to issue new debt the only way for the gov to fiscally survive is massive downsizing. Based on the current budget breakdown (particularly entitlements and defense) - I estimate the US would have a likely forced reduction by roughly 2/3 (30% spending remains) to "fit" within the taxable base.
However as we know politics is irrational and not swayed by simple maths...
Democratic voters aren't incentivized to care about "the budget" since fiscal costs are socialized and they want individual benefits. Thus in the US we've voted spending into laws no politician will cut (else they are voted out). Even if they tried to adapt bureaucracy slows reaction time down further meaning its unlikely they could adapt fast enough if they tried at all.
The Endgame: gov loses monopoly on force
That premise leaves me seeing no feasible way at least US and similar big fiat govs would able to rebalance smoothly. At a minimum I see them defaulting on all their debts and downsizing rapidly. Avik Roy of Bitcoin Policy Institute estimates this will occur around the late 2030s - mid 2040s. He seems to be more optimistic about the continuity of the US in that scenario (need to read his source material). Though in my view rapid shrinking at the cost of every voter benefit and national security is a few riots away from full system collapse.
(side note: read Joseph Tainter collapse of complex societies shows historical analogues)
Social Darwinian AnCaps might argue that even if a public entity like a gov survives all that, it should always fail eventually relative to a private entity given enough time on a hard money standard. Though, perhaps a government could survive as a "night watchman" or a "tourism state" as outlined in the Sovereign Individual. Either way it will have lost most or all of its ability to enforce anything on Bitcoin hodling citizens.
All this leads me to conclude that the odds of an enforceable legal system continuing indefinitely or even through our lifetimes seems unlikely. And I like society! I want to believe the bitcoin transition can be graceful but according to this logic you shouldn't bet on it.
But I'm sure I've missed things in my attempted reasoning here... What do you think?
Your math is correct and I think you pretty much summed up the situation as the breaking up of a monopoly. Force is an industry. Violence is the raw ore, and in theory the government is supposed to refine that ore into a useful alloy, by separating out good violence from bad. Everyone has a financial interest in making sure someone is on guard to physically shut down the robber or the crazy person. The government monopolized this industry by the same logic they monopolize anything else. "This is too complicated for the private sector to handle, this is a fundamental need that everyone should be paying for collectively," and so on.
Until the government mismanages it badly enough, or neglects it from lack of funding, that everyone is ends up having to pay for it themselves anyway. So in the same way that households have to set up a personal generator when the government's electric grid goes down, they will also have to work out a method of replacing the police department and the army. What that looks like in 2100 is surely an improvement over today's system. But as far as 2030 United States goes, it's not looking good. My optimistic take is that there will still be some region within North America that is predominantly English-speaking.
reply
Timeline sounds reasonable. US has an advantage in that it can sort of balkanize into states - but it doesn't resolve the underlying public institution inefficiency and thus inability to provide safety.
Trying to get better projections around this timeline can feel a bit like abstract over-intellectualizing. But, I think it has very real repercussions. For example, if one needs to spend years to get second passports for their whole family or learn a new language or build an expertise in MMA & marksmanship those are all high-cost preparations that deserve well thought out projections. Suddenly the 2030s doesn't seem like its that far away!
reply
Please take off you orange tinted US Exceptionalist lenses. And deal with fiat debt leverage reality. Debt works to leverage wealth creation if it is mostly directed into assets that produce profits.
The west, its governments captured by corporate banker patrons has lost the ability to do that and instead allowed squandering of fiat debt capital issuance upon non productive speculative assets. Mostly real estate. Because it suits the bankers and wealthy elites.
China in contrast has won the trade war and controls strategic supply chains- like rare earths...having consciously directed fiat debt capital issuance toward achieving supply chain dominance. IE- using fiat debt leverage in a deliberate, productive and strategic manner.
The US has operated both a fiscal and trade deficit for decades. Government debt is now reaching levels that look unsustainable. The demand for USTs is declining and if interest rates rise = insolvency.
China operates a trade surplus over $1 Trillion. USA/USD/SWIFT monetary hegemony collapses but China doesn't. That is the current trajectory.
Bitcoin has already been largely captured and controlled as a taxed, KYCed state surveilled speculative commodity. Bitcoin is not a viable MoE for international trade and thus no threat to fiat hegemony.
reply
peers over black-tinted realist lenses
I don't think the US is magically exceptional. I do believe free-market capitalism with hard money is a force-multiplier for society since it incentivizes individuals to work and innovate. These days the best economic freedom is found in Singapore or Hong Kong. The Triffin's Dilemma-created trade surplus with China is certainly a big short-term advantage in production capability.
However, China (and every country uses pure debt-based fiat) suffers from the same bureaucratic and debt problems the US has - they're actively ramping up money printing daily right now to counteract the bad debt in their real estate and banking sectors.
The greatest threat to fiat hegemony is itself because fiat is fundamentally ineffective at storing value or rewarding the contributing members of society. Over time it leads to civil unrest and stagflation due to central banking and will splinter a country no matter how it manages its macro trade.
You might be right that China can outlast the US. But it can't outlast competition with superior monetary technology.
reply
Agree free market competition is fundamental to wealth creation. But do not agree that it is the sole factor. Instead, it is a combination of competitive free market productivity and state led strategic positioning that builds the most formidable economy. And regarding fiat money- it can be used to accelerate growth in productivity as long it is not misused- as long is the fiat debt capital that leverages off of the existing monetary capital of all participants in any given fiat jurisdiction is directed toward productive - strategic purposes. Yes the Chinese real estate market is an example of where the Chinese allowed fiat to inflate non productive asset price- because they had not and still have not yet allowed sufficiently robust and diverse investment options for Chinese to access. But apart from that weakness and failure, more generally the Chinese direct most/more fiat debt capital toward productive purposes than the west- where non productive fiat capital issuance has become the majority destination of new fiat issuance. For example in my US subsidiary nation state of New Zealand, where 80% of the banking sector is majority owned by US shareholders, over 60% of finance provided by the banks is toward real estate- prior to the 1980s neoliberal 'reforms' it was less than 5%.
In the west capital has come to own governments and those captured governments have allowed the banks to issue fiat debt capital toward any purpose - not solely productive/infrastructure assets as was the case until neoliberal 'reforms'.
In contrast, in China, the government still directs capital- and most/the majority is directed toward productive purposes. China deliberately builds capacity to produce the basic inputs for productive sectors by directing capital issuance toward natural monopoly infrastructure that feeds them. Example- power generation is built and the factories come to use it. The power price is kept low by power generators who are state owned and have no shareholder dividend imperative. The private and competitive factories enjoy supply of electricity (and freight and communications etc) that are lower priced than those of their competitors in western economies where monopoly infrastructure assets are mostly owned by private rentseeking monopolies and cartels who do have a primary purpose of maximising dividends to shareholders and owe no obligation to the wider economy.
Fiat debt based capital issuance only drives wider wealth generation compensating for its inherent debasement when it is directed toward productive assets. Chinas strategy of deliberately funding and building the core raw inputs for the productive sectors (energy, transport, communications, skilled workers) and ensuring they are provided at the lowest cost possible has built the Chinese economy that can now compete and win against all other economies. It has worked. In addition to directing capital to strategic supply chains like rare earths refining- China has the west over a barrel. It is only with a government motivated to and determined to direct capital and develop strategic assets and supply chains that this is possible. The wests free markets are incapable of ever refining rare earths and regaining independent supplies without massive state subsidies and decades of them at that.
Free markets alone, hard money alone, will not beat an economy that uses fiat debt capital in a consciously disciplined and directed manner to build the maximum competitive advantage for its productive sectors.
All dominant and successful empires from Rome to The British and USA have combined state military and power projection to maximise the wealth creation potential of their merchants and producers. Britains government via its navy and their cannons enabled the East India company to capture and exploit markets and resources in India and China via Hong Kong. The US has captured and controlled the majority of global institutions and protocols like the World bank, IMF, SWIFT etc and via the petrodollar sustained its post WW2 global hegemony. Its not just free markets but state lead investments, strategy and power projection that enables and determines the wealth of nations.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Thereal 21 Sep
We’re probably going to see more of a mix rather than a simple “law stays or law goes.” Some laws and systems will stick around, but they'll look a bit different.
The change is likely to be a bit chaotic, with a mix of things like traditional money, cryptocurrencies, local norms, private enforcement, and state laws all blended in various places.
The most vulnerable areas will likely be big federal programs, major entitlements, or international commitments. On the other hand, local governance, community laws, and property rights are likely to hold up better.
reply
that tracks how Roman law was fragmented and absorbed by germanic invaders as it fell - tribes and the church kept some while jettisoning others. i'd imagine some foundational aspects of our legal framework which are based on roman law will continue into the future as well. though its not clear to me who the "enforcer" will be...
reply
What is "the law"?
reply
The framework upon which economies rely for the enforcement of property rights.
Without it there is not much incentive or even ability, to invest in complex structures upon which wealth, security and prosperity are built.
reply
Bitcoin is future of money and economy as many people shift to digital currency. I believe it will survive for sure as far as we adopt it with open arms. It's obvious that it conflicts with the fiat and traditional currency but it's just about power and control that every is looking for without really solving any real world difficulties.
Long live Bitcoin!
reply