"I" vs "we" from an economic perspective \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

"I" vs "we" from an economic perspective

127 sats \ 19 comments \ @elvismercury 26 Jul 2023 bitcoin

Here's a question I have that I'd be interested in bitcoiner perspectives on. It will take a bit of wind-up to motivate.

The virtues of economic calculation were best expressed (imo) by Hayek in Use of Knowledge in Society, and amount to: free exchange is a distributed information processing system whose interactions are governed by prices, which in turn are expressed in money. Screw around with any of these elements (e.g., debase the money; manipulate prices; coerce transaction) and you will pervert the "computation" of value of that system. The world will subtly skew away from the "true" value imputed by the individual distributed elements (freely transacting people) towards what is mandated by fiat, either fiat currency, or fiat as coercion of human action.

One thing that has always seemed a shortfall in this formulation is society itself -- the collective, the emergent structures of interacting components. That there is a collective agency that emerges from atomic interaction is well understood in other fields -- birds flock, fish school, ants build anthills that act according to their aggregate logic. Even we, as interacting individuals, are composites of simpler atomic units -- the well being of the white blood cell is disjoint from the well being of the organism that it helps constitute.

That externalities accrue to the group as a result of individual action is also well-understood. Basically, someone has to look out for the "we" because the individual "I" has no incentive to do it. If I walk outside, it's likely some shithead has thrown his garbage in the street. Why not? What's it to him to fuck up a part of the world that he's just passing through?

So the question: it's widely accepted by non-bitcoiners that there is a "we" we should care about, that society is a thing that we should value, that it requires certain compromises from the individuals that live in it, and that in general this is worth sacrificing for even though we don't like it all the time, including for things like taxes and laws and such. Some of you may have traveled to places where this sense of society has fractured, and these are all, with no exception in my experience, terrible shitholes.

I'm trying to not fixate on the more idiotic and extreme opinions on this topic. So I'd like to know, honestly, what you as bitcoiners think about your place / integration within the larger society. Do you really want to burn it all down? Do you really think there's no role for government in the future you want? Do you really think taxation is theft, and prefer a world without it? Do you really think that all fiat is bad?

view all related items

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @maths 26 Jul 2023

This question cuts to the heart of the philosophical underpinnings of Bitcoin, as it delves into the issue of individual versus collective responsibilities and how Bitcoin fits within this dynamic. Many of your points reflect the ideas of prominent Austrian School economists, such as Hayek and Mises, as well as the principles of anarchic, decentralized systems seen in biology and technology.

The Austrian School emphasizes the power of decentralized decision-making, with each individual best positioned to make decisions based on their local knowledge, a concept that Hayek expounded upon in 'The Use of Knowledge in Society'. This decentralization is mirrored in Bitcoin’s design where no single entity controls the system and all participants voluntarily choose to interact with it.

However, as you rightly point out, Hayek's formulation does not directly address societal externalities or the collective. The collective, emergent structures from atomic interactions, are indeed an area of rich study, beautifully captured in works like 'Emergence' by Steven Johnson or 'Sync' by Steven Strogatz.

Bitcoiners recognize these emergent structures and believe that Bitcoin itself is an emergent system - a network of voluntary participants whose collective action imbues Bitcoin with value. Bitcoin, while rooted in individualistic philosophy, is a global, collective endeavour, a kind of digital commonwealth if you will.

Regarding the role of government and taxation, many Bitcoiners do not advocate for a complete dissolution of the state or a total repudiation of taxation. Rather, they believe that Bitcoin provides a counterbalance to potential governmental overreach. As Mises noted in 'Human Action', "The issue is always the same: the government or the market. There is no third solution."

For the 'Bitcoiner', it isn't about tearing down society or living in a world without government or laws. It's about advocating for a system that minimizes coercion and maximizes freedom, based on the belief that such a system would provide the best outcomes for society as a whole.

Bitcoin offers a non-coercive system of value transfer which is resistant to censorship, inflation, and manipulation. In other words, it's a kind of economic freedom manifest in code, a "free market money", if you like.

Lastly, on the issue of fiat, while Bitcoiners might take issue with the inflationary nature of fiat currencies, it would be a mistake to assume that all Bitcoiners view all fiat as fundamentally bad. Many would argue that fiat currencies serve a purpose but are flawed in ways that Bitcoin seeks to address.

In conclusion, the Bitcoin philosophy is not a manifesto for anarchy or societal disintegration. It's a call for individual freedom, personal responsibility, and a rebalancing of power structures. Bitcoiners see themselves as part of society, not outside of it. They simply want to shape that society in a way that aligns with their deeply held beliefs about freedom, autonomy, and fairness.

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightcoin_ 26 Jul 2023

Do you really want to burn it all down?

Do you really think there's no role for government in the future you want? Do you really think taxation is theft, and prefer a world without it?

yes

Do you really think that all fiat is bad?

fiat that is forced on people by legal mandates and banking cartels, yes. if fiat proponents want to have unbacked currency, then they can issue it into the market and freely compete like everyone else. once they put a gun to people's heads to force them to use it and to enforce restrictions on competition they have totally lost all credibility and moral authority.

if you want to read more about the political philosophy underlying my views you can look into market anarchism and panarchy. here are some links to get you started:

https://marketsnotcapitalism.com/

https://kevinacarson.org/publication/ot/

https://kevinacarson.org/publication/drs/

https://www.panarchy.org/indexes/panarchy.html

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @KoreaComK 26 Jul 2023

Do you really want to burn it all down? Do you really think there's no role for government in the future you want? Do you really think taxation is theft, and prefer a world without it? Do you really think that all fiat is bad?

TL;DR No. Yes. Yes. Yes.

I believe that no one wants the world to fall into disgrace. Even Christians, who know that the world is in decay after Christ's death and resurrection, do not want a worse world for their children. (Not going into religious issues, just using a practical example that most people understand).

The world I desire does not exist the State. Governance and governments are something else. It is something that many believe to be the same thing, however they are not. Similar to Republic and Democracy. Two things that normally go together but are totally different.

EVERY STATE WILL TEND TO AUTHORITARISM. That's why I don't want any kind of state, other than governance and government, which are entities that are not, a priori, authoritarian. A certain city may have its governance and a government defined and structured based on the definitions of the contracts of that place, but that does not mean that you are obliged to be part of that city. There is the possibility of not accepting the contract and going on with your life without the services and products of that location.

About tax, by definition, it is theft, after all, I never agreed to pay for that. What's the difference between a tax and a thief robbing me of a hundred dollars and giving me back a massage worth fifteen dollars? None!

All fiat currencies are bad, precisely because you need to trust that the entity responsible for it will be reputable. In addition, there is an obligation for you to accept (imposition) to use it as a means of exchange.

20 sats \ 2 replies \ @clr 26 Jul 2023

This is a very good question.

My perception is that most people "care" about society insofar society gives them something in return. Most people are getting a good deal. Yes, they pay taxes, obey laws, and so on, but they get medical care, very nice infrastructure, recognition, love, belonging, and so on. They get a good deal and thus are happy with the status quo.

Personally, I have almost never gotten such a good deal. When people say "we" or "us", to me they actually mean "them", without including me. I have not been recognized, taken into account nor included as I would like. I have been mostly belittled, silenced, neglected and marginalized. Yes, "society" has provided me with the bare minimum material necessities that I needed to exist, but never given me fulfillment for my soul.

Despite all that despair, I have somehow managed to survive. When I discovered bitcoin, it gave me the hope of being able to reach the life I deserve. If it wasn't for bitcoin, I would probably be dead now. Bitcoin changes the power dynamics and places me closer to the position I believe I deserve in society. It's probably similar for other bitcoiners. Conversely, people who are privileged by the prevailing system sense this and feel threatened by bitcoin; hence their profound distaste towards it.

To your questions in the last paragraph, my answer is mostly yes to all of them. If you feel threatened by this answer, please go check your privilege. Don't be afraid of change; everything will fall into place. I'd suggest be open minded and you will be able to put yourself in a better position in the new paradigm.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury OP 26 Jul 2023

Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I'm curious how btc has manifested in this powerful way for you?

If it wasn't for bitcoin, I would probably be dead now. Bitcoin changes the power dynamics and places me closer to the position I believe I deserve in society.

This could be a very literal statement (e.g., you made a bunch of money investing in btc and now you're in a better position) or it could mean something else.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @clr 27 Jul 2023

During these years I've been doing therapy, retreats, workshops, reading books, having rest time for myself and other things in order to heal myself. Without quitting the job, with only 2-3 weeks of vacation per year, I couldn't have had the necessary time to do any of these things. Basically, I was trapped in the hamster wheel and I couldn't see any way out. By now, I guess that I would have probably either killed myself out of desperation or died because of some disease due to stress and despair. That's how bitcoin has helped me on a more concrete level.

On a more abstract level, bitcoin provides an anchor to reality. The clown world covers its lies with even bigger lies each time, and that system keeps working as long as enough people believe the lies. Bitcoin allows me to remind myself of what truly matters.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @proeu 26 Jul 2023

I think this question is for the Libertarian Bitcoiners ;)

1 sat \ 9 replies \ @Undisciplined 26 Jul 2023

Very short answer that I think gets to the heart of your premise:

Birds flock because it's good for the survival of each bird in it. The flock itself does not have preferences or agency or independent value.

21 sats \ 8 replies \ @elvismercury OP 26 Jul 2023

It's a matter of perspective whether the flock, or the school, or the anthill, or the human being, is real; or if only its constituent elements are real. Certainly the survival value of the individual, in these cases, is related to dynamics only real at the level of the aggregate.

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined 26 Jul 2023

Not exactly. Animal behaviors can generally be explained from the standpoint of passing on genes, as if that's the individual's motivation. The same can't be said for collectives behaving to propagate the collective beyond that, at least not in any work I'm familiar with.

21 sats \ 6 replies \ @elvismercury OP 26 Jul 2023

The unit of transmission is the gene when you're talking strictly biology. We're now talking about other abstractions. Dawkins introduced the term "universal Darwinism" to discuss this strategy on non-biological strata.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 26 Jul 2023

I see that something I wrote was pretty unclear.

What I meant by

Animal behaviors can generally be explained from the standpoint of passing on genes

was that even the emergence of collectives can be explained by that kind of rational self interest. The implication being that there isn't really any room left for the collective to express any agency.

In other words, what is it these collectives are doing? What preferences or actions are they expressing?

20 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 26 Jul 2023

That doesn't mean it necessarily applies to human collectives. Broadly speaking, social outcomes conform to individual incentives. That's different than thinking about the collectives of cells that make up individuals.

What complicates the picture slightly is the feedback that develops over generations of living in groups. Over time, behaviors that are better adapted to surviving in the group are selected for, which can make it seem like the group itself is maintaining itself.

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @elvismercury OP 27 Jul 2023

Indeed. The evolutionary game theory on that latter point is super interesting.

But I think you're missing the essence of this, which is that even though the individual units are the ones that have "agency" (I use scare quotes because it's not obvious what this actually means, as per modern phenomenological cognitive science, or how and under what circumstances one arrives at agency built from non-agentic components), the fact that a person can't identify the agency operating at the level of emergence -- in this case, the human collection which is constituted of individual agents -- does not mean that no such agency exists. Rather, it exists at another layer of the substrate. The field of complexity science exists in part to pursue this idea.

Although tbf, I'm not sure this thread is necessary to the question I was originally asking or not. My original point was that, regardless of what a person feels about intentionality on emergent structures, there's a thing I can't quite believe, which is that people in this space really mean it when they think that everything will come out fine basically ignoring the social layer, that individual-layer incentives and property rights and sound money are all that's necessary for a golden age to ensue, and that larger-scale coordination issues just work themselves out with no "we" needing to be taken into account.

Obviously, people make claims of this type. I'm trying to get a sense of how much they (at least the ones who reply to this post) mean it, and why, and if there's anything to learn from it.

20 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 27 Jul 2023

there's a thing I can't quite believe, which is that people in this space really mean it when they think that everything will come out fine basically ignoring the social layer, that individual-layer incentives and property rights and sound money are all that's necessary

Believe it baby! Some of us do believe in the emergent order of consensual behavior. That doesn't mean we have no concern for the social layer. Rather, it means we believe the social layer emerges from the incentives inherent in a commitment to a non-coercive social order.

It isn't that surprising when you think about how a commitment to property rights inherently means some form of a commitment to mutual protection from harm. At some level, there would have to be mutually agreed to terms. That implies people who seek to live coercive lifestyles have to be somehow removed. If there's no one around doing coercive stuff, what's the big concern about the "social layer"?

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury OP 27 Jul 2023

Mainly, I don't think it's enough. It's never been enough, anywhere, ever -- more structure always emerges. You have property rights, sound money, etc., and then your neighbor starts doing something that pisses you off that is not exactly coercive, but out-of-bounds. Everyone around you agrees that there's something wrong with this asshole. And social structure emerges. Somebody winds up 'coercing' somebody else in the end.

Keynes and Hayek had an exchange after H published "The Road to Serfdom" where Keynes basically said (paraphrasing): "I am totally on board with this, it's great, except: how are you going to realize it in practice? What, literally, are you going to do?" Which I think is telling. If you have to get really concrete about what to do in realistic circumstances, the simplistic things fall away.

But this, or something like it, has been litigated since Plato, and we're not going to resolve it on SN. I appreciate you riffing with me a bit on the topic, it is more real than random Twitter drive-bys, and helps me get perspective.

view replies

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 26 Jul 2023

That's a lot of words to say that externalities and public goods exist

I can't speak for other bitcoiners, but I do believe there is a role for government and that legitimate forms of taxation exist.

I would simply argue that fiat has encouraged a lot of harmful excesses in our society, such as corruption, malinvestment, and overconsumption. Going back to a hard money standard can fix some of these societal ills.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury OP 26 Jul 2023

I was attempting to say more than those two things. But I appreciate your perspective. What actual people believe, vs the talking points that get most of the visibility on social media, is what I was hoping to understand better.