pull down to refresh
30 sats \ 8 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 19 Aug 2024 \ on: Bitcoin and Political Tribalism bitcoin
Bitcoin has exposed how the fiat monetary system has been used to tax via stealth.
This enrages libertarians, embarrasses progressives and is an outrage to conservatives.
Both progressive and conservatives have been complicit in using fiat debasement as a means of devious taxation.
Bankers have also been complicit as debasement only further enhances their profits...and complicity with bankers is probably more attributable to co0nservatives then progressives although since neoliberalism the lines of distinction have blurred.
But the group I would like to address most are the libertarians as they have not ever been in government much and so not so much compromised by the pact with debasement and debt that is fiat money.
Do libertarians deny that government is required if you want to preserve your nations sovereignty in view of the perpetual competition for power and resources between nation states?
If they do not deny this do they choose their host nation state to jettison fiat monetary leverage unilaterally leaving that power available to adversary nation states?
Because my problem with liberatians is that they seem to ignore the eternal contest that goes on between nation states for global resource hegemony. In most cases these libertarians live in nations which have successfully dominated the contest for resources to date and where living in such nations they enjoy a relatively high level of personal and economic advantage relative to most citizens of the planet.
If they so resent the taxing imposition of the state, why don't they go live in nations where the state is much less in control of both its citizens and the resources of other nations?
My point being they perhaps take for granted the security, wealth and personal 'rights' advantage that accompany residence in a nation that has exerted its will forcefully both internally and externally.
Do libertarians deny that government is required if you want to preserve your nations sovereignty in view of the perpetual competition for power and resources between nation states?
The language of your question is a bit loaded. Many libertarians, but still a minority, do not believe a state is necessary for a society to function and prosper. Other libertarians believe that you need a very limited state to enforce property rights.
If they do not deny this do they choose their host nation state to jettison fiat monetary leverage unilaterally leaving that power available to adversary nation states?
The typical view would be something like "Fiat makes the ruling class wealthier, but the nation weaker." Libertarians do not conflate the government with the nation.
If they so resent the taxing imposition of the state, why don't they go live in nations where the state is much less in control of both its citizens and the resources of other nations?
Some do. Others have commitments beyond their ideology that prevent doing so. Most prefer to try to improve their homeland and put up with whatever amount of tyranny that requires.
In general, I would say we reject your assumptions/conclusions that common people benefit from the state actions you describe. We think the state enriches itself at the expense of ordinary people and foreigners, for the most part.
reply
So Americans generally have not benefited materially from the global resource and governance dominance of the US? Surely this is not true.
'Many libertarians, but still a minority, do not believe a state is necessary for a society to function and prosper. Other libertarians believe that you need a very limited state to enforce property rights.'
So no Libertarians recognise that a government is required to protect, promote and preserve the nations independence and wealth from foreign powers who might seek to gain dominance and control?
This would seem an incredibly naive viewpoint given the history we know of nation states exerting dominance and control over each other.
The current hegemony of the US has seen it gain near global dominance in terms of institutional governance, protocols, military force and monetary monopoly.
Surely it is naive to assert that Americans have benefited from this dominance with USA consuming far higher per capita amounts of resources and energy than the rest of the world?
Even if wealth distribution in the USA is increasingly uneven overall the wealth of citizens of any nation is undeniably linked to the ability of that nation to resist the capture and exploitation of other nations and in turn the ability of a nation to capture and exploit the resources of others. No other nation demonstrates this more clearly than the US...
reply
Libertarians aren't collectivists, so when you talk about "a nation's wealth" we don't think that's a meaningful concept. Individuals have property and most libertarians believe a state is necessary to protect it from bad actors, either foreign or domestic.
Most of us do not believe that America's military belligerence has made us better off. Rather, we've benefitted from having freer trade with most of the world and looser immigration restrictions. We also benefit greatly from having better than average recognition of our individual rights.
reply
'Libertarians aren't collectivists, so when you talk about "a nation's wealth" we don't think that's a meaningful concept.'
But a nations wealth is important because it determines how much it can invest in education, infrastructure, health, justice and defense.
Without the collective provision of education, infrastructure, health, justice and defense a nation is not able to maximise the potential value of its citizens and natural resources.
Humans are weak individually- it only via the collective, co-operative and competitive organisation in groups that humans have come to harness/dominate the world.
Humans fortunate to live in nation states that have come to dominate the access to and use of resources enjoy a higher standard of living and opportunity than nations where the government has been subjugated into surrender of its sovereignty and wealth. The infamous banana republics of Latin America provide example of the winners and losers of US imperialism within the Americas...and that of the Spanish even earlier.
Far from being a champion of free trade the US is one of the most protectionist and closed in the world. It overwhelmingly controls global standards and protocols via institutions such as SWIFT, IMF, World Bank, UN and multiple other rule setting regimes. The wealth of the US now heavily rests upon its USD / SWIFT global monetary hegemony- whereby most nations are forced to hold USD in order to participate in international trade payments, or be sanctioned and excluded such as Iran and Russia.
Without these significant mechanisms of state power and leverage the superior rights, wealth, opportunities and privileges of American citizens, including libertarians would be greatly reduced.
reply
Libertarians don't think you need state coercion to organize most cooperative enterprises, like providing education, infrastructure, or healthcare. Entrepreneurs can and have provided all of those things without the state being involved.
I don't think you're overarching narrative holds up very well. The Chinese government is incredibly dominant over its area and the Chinese people are much poorer than the people of Switzerland, whose government exercises very little dominance.
Economic freedom is what best correlates with prosperity.
reply
Switzerland vs China is hardly a fair example as Switzerland has acted as the neutral gold vault of European imperialism for centuries while China has only recently emerged from the humiliation and cultural and economic devastation resulting from the Opium Wars and the associated and subsequent impact of western imperialism.
How can you not admire the seemingly very democratic system that operates in Switzerland, but whether it can be replicated in other jurisdictions (that do not provide its unique role as a neutral state and safe haven gold vault) seems debatable.
It can be noted however that the highly centralised, collectivist and autocratic Chinese economy is has delivered the largest raising in wealth of any human collective/nation in history and that the future prospects of young Chinese are generally seen as much improved upon those of their parents while the future prospects of most western nations youth are mostly seen as inferior to their 'boomer' parents.
I contend that there is a lack of appreciation in both progressives and libertarians today for the principle that citizens owe some reciprocal duty toward the collective mechanism of the state as quid pro quo for the rights and opportunities the state provisions for the individual. As someone once said- 'Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'