brockm
Mike Brock

Some Thoughts on the TikTok Ban And Liberal Democracy. https://medium.com/@mike.brock/some-thoughts-on-the-tiktok-ban-and-liberal-democracy-ed6b4ce70fd6

2024-04-21 20:56:08

- reply

So once again, you're just so certain this world of yours will be so much more just and market forces will deliver just outcomes. You're so sure, you just shrug and say these regressions I bring up are not worth thinking about. Neat!

2024-04-21 20:51:27

- reply

The concept you're referring to is known as "prior restraint".

2024-04-21 20:37:43

- reply

In an anarcho-capitalist future, what exactly does the poor person appeal to when the billionaire doesn't honor their commitment? What if that billionaire owns the private court for dispute resolution? The obvious problems with this extreme property maximalist view are quite simply not that hard to think about. You're just asserting moral prefepts, and acting with indignance that anyone could disagree.

2024-04-21 20:11:53

- reply

An economic dominance can never be a form of authoritarianism, because you believe property rights are the highest moral good. Yes, I know all your arguments. And I'll just say, you've just treated my entire critique as irrelevant, because you're so certain of the objective correctness of your views based on a priori reasoning.

2024-04-21 20:07:18

- reply

I mean, right-libertarians just act as if their first principles ethical stances are self-evidently true. And concerns about things like the problem of collective action are irrelevant. Even more bizarre, is they assume that everyone is going to eventually agree with them and have a moral awakening where they realize "taxation is theft" and therefore we have to get rid of the welfare state.

2024-04-21 20:02:38

- reply

Basically you're just saying the anarcho-capitalist argument is objectively objectively morally correct. All matters of distribution are just irrelevant because property rights must be absolute. Any claim on the public good is authoritarian. Naturally, I think this stance is both unconvincing and smug.

2024-04-21 19:47:39

- reply

You haven't really addressed anything I've said here, so not such how to respond. You've merely just restated the case I'm criticizing and not attending to my arguments at all.

2024-04-21 19:36:48

- reply

I actually got distracted and didn't proof read that. Here is an edited version of what I just said for clairty:
I never said that Davidson and Rees-Mogg advance the praxeological justification. I said the best attempts to justify that kind of thinking do. In fact, that the Sovereign Individual is silent on its normative foundations, and simply tracks a technological determinist argument — that to your point, the incentives leading intractably towards a certain outcome — is the entire basis for my charge of epistemic authoritarianism.
An example of what I’m saying would be the notion that say “the welfare state won’t be possible, even if people want it” in the future that is an intractible logical consequence of the incentive structures. That’s an implicit normative constraint that takes arguments about a common good that isn’t merely a feature of revealed market preferences off the table. Which, I say betrays a very extreme right-libertarian view at the bottom of the whole thesis.
So I apologize if I wasn’t clear enough in the following paragraph to separate the critique of the argument from the praxeological argument for the normative foundations of such a view. But I’d argue, if anything, I am trying to bring my critique against the strongest form of the argument. Which I don’t think Davidson and Rees-Mogg make, by the way.

2024-04-21 19:33:05

- reply

*Rees-Mogg. My bad.

2024-04-21 19:29:51

- reply

I never said that Davidson and Rees-Moog advance the praxeological justification. I said the best attempts to justify that kind of thinking do. In fact, that the Sovereign Individual is silent on its normative foundations, and simply tracks a technological determinist argument — that to your point, the incentives leading intractably towards a certain outcome — is the entire basis for my charge of epistemic authoritarianism.
An example of what I’m saying would be the notion that say “the welfare state won’t be possible, even if people want it” in the future that is laid out. That’s an implicit normative constraint that takes arguments about a common good that isn’t merely a feature of revealed market preferences, betrays a very extreme right-libertarian view at the bottom of the whole thesis.
So I apologize if I wasn’t clear enough in the following paragraph to separate the critique of the argument from the praxeological argument for the normative foundations of such a view. But I’d argue, if anything, I am trying to bring my critique against the strongest form of the argument. Which I don’t think Davidson and Rees-Mogg make, by the way.

2024-04-21 18:43:07

Technological determinism is a real mind virus that afflicts way too many people in my field. It’s pervasive and has led an incredibly large group of people to make dramatic philosophical errors. The book, the Sovereign Individual, has played at outsized role among many people — especially in the “web3” space — at convincing people of the inevitability of future outcomes. Balaji’s “network states” are really just another revision on these philosophical errors, born of foundationalist a priori notions about moral truths.
The best attempts at defending these moral truths — such as things like praxeology — are completely unconvincing and are just tautologies that assume the things they set out to prove. In particular, property rights as intractable consequences of the moral necessity to enable human action by a fundamental — not social — right to the product of one’s own labor.
These arguments all also boil down to “this future is going to happen whether you like it or not”, which really betrays the epistemically authoritarian nature of this thinking, which denies the possibility for, and the normative possibility of collection action in defense of a common good.

2024-04-21 18:19:40

- reply

I also have an argument based on thermodynamics as to why I think these arguments are true at a systems level — but I know people roll their eyes on this stuff as it is.

2024-04-21 18:08:16

- reply

Yes.

2024-04-21 18:00:13

- reply

We don’t use cash for everything.

2024-04-21 17:59:54

I will also say, this same argument, when generalized brings into question the whole concept of digital contracts as workable at all. The idea of self-executing contracts that can be used to revolutionize everything from property titles to equities trading. But any sane workable system is going to rely on truth oracles that have some social component to deal with disputes. And if that’s true, then we’re probably right back in good old regular law courts.
At which point, the question just immediately needs to be asked: why do we have these digital contracts in the first place?
I actually think this is a completely fatal blow to the entire idea of Web3. The intractable problem is staring you in the face, if you do some philosophical exploration of the people. #note1np9…3ejf

2024-04-21 17:43:07

I’m somewhat skeptical that there’s some technological solution around the corner, where the scaling issues around bitcoin are going to be solved to such a degree, that all payments themselves can be trustless.
The main reason being that all of the solutions being pursued thus far, achieve trustlessness by giving up on the possibility of recourse in the transaction. The only real counterparty probelem being solved then, is eliminating the possibility of settlement default, once a transaction has been arranged. But this has never been the only trust issue in payment arrangements.
Most of the kinds of default that people think about in the real world, have nothing to do with the possibility of non-settlement, and everything to do with the possibility of breach of contract on the delivery of goods or rendering of services. To the extent that bitcoin scaling discussions set these issues aside, and instead center the discussion around durability in only the most adversarial situations (resisting state overreach, usually) — a broader understanding of the way economic advancement comes about is ignored.
Economies don’t flourish simply because they have reliable money and payment schemes. They flourish because social trust is possible — that people will honor contracts, commitments, won’t resort to violent means of dispute resolution.
This is actually why I find the anarcho-capitalist frame of thinking around bitcoin so distracting to moving bitcoin forward. The target it’s aiming for, simply bypasses all of these notions, and is really just an exercise in question begging.
“But if we have recourse on payments, how will that prevent the government being able to regulate or censor it?”
If that’s what you think is the highest good to be considered in the project of finding ways to scale bitcoin payments, then I’d suggest that none of the solutions you land on are going to be satisfactory for mainstream use — ever. Because there can never be a way to control for matters of social trust through cryptographic protocols alone. We are not digital light beings that live inside computers, that can be forced to act or not act based on computational rules. Our interaction with any technology is always analog and mediated by a social context — where all the interesting problems of counterparty risk exist.
This is, of course, what the insight was that led to the creation of tbDEX. Instead of any doubts being raised in me about this observation, the stridency of my stance here has only increased, as I’ve watched the conversation move forward.

2024-04-21 16:37:29

Elections are a legitimizing function for political power. That is the role they play. Approaching electoral choices like a purity test and one of cosmic significance to your character, is downstream of some very impoverished understandings of both democracy and society itself.
Ultimately, we have to confront the pragmatic reality that we are ultimately navigating a hierarchy of good. If you resist this notion, you’re actually participating in a fairly dangerous game of reducing the umbrella of interests the political economy will be responsive to, to the most craven — if for no other reason than smaller polities are easier to capture.
For me, character is just as important as policy in thinking about these things, because the question I ask myself about who I want having power, is not one merely about “what policies does this person support?” — but a more subtle one: “who would I feel more comfortable disagreeing with, knowing the conversation can continue, and that our current policy commitments remain, in perpetuity, provisional?”

2024-04-20 04:23:20

People wonder why I have chosen to infuse philosophy so deeply in my work style and even professionally. Daniel explains the power of this better than I can, in this 10 minute video. He is one of my personal heroes. I got to meet him once, and it was one of the few times I got genuinely star struck. He was gentle, patient and kind and seemed to enjoy answering all my dumb questions.
https://x.com/bigthink/status/1781367395107357144?s=46&t=8zspgFtU1sQttMY8dBvhOQ

2024-04-13 21:01:37

- reply

You seem to be reaching a very violent conclusion.

2024-04-13 20:27:49

Are we a fragmented society of hostile factions fighting for dominance, or do we contain and retain some collective capacity for maintaining some conception of the common good? And I note that both external and internal arguments are being made to undermine that notion. Some of you, are taken by those notions, and for that I can only express my sadness. Even I hope for your redemption and return to the project.

2024-04-13 20:19:26

- reply

And I would suggest, without absolute seriousness and concern, that only the conclusion of the necessity of violence is left once you foreclose the possibility of argument. The totalitarian impulse is revealed. And the liberal like me, is trying desperately to convince people that in order for us to hang on to our freedom, we must also cradle and nurture some conception of the common good.

2024-04-13 20:15:43

The problem with identity politics often isn't the social injustices they highlight. Those things are often quite obvious and hard for us to ignore. The problem is when we close off the possibility of redemption. Because if we can't see each other as redeemable, then we really have no basis for sharing a civilization. And I make this same general argument as harshly to my right as I make it to my left.
And I'll complete the thought for you: if there's no redemption possible, there's also no point in having an argument at all. And from that conclusion, nothing good comes.

2024-04-11 17:40:31

The thing about the stability of systems, is it has absolutely nothing to do with ossification and everything to do with adaptability. People misunderstand this to their peril. In all domains: politics, economics, and yes: bitcoin.

2024-04-11 04:01:34

- reply

For extra bonus points: Try going through this process before staking out a position, at all!

2024-04-11 03:55:58

How to have sane takes on things, in a few easy steps:
1. Consider what you believe.
2. Seek out the best arguments you can find that contradict what you believe, and carefully consider these arguments.
3. If you cannot figure out why these arguments are wrong, and make good logical arguments against them, reduce the credence that you’re right. Perhaps even consider changing your mind.
The end.
Addendum: If you are unaware of good arguments against your deeply held economic, political, or ethical position, this is a very intellectually suspicious state of affairs.

2024-04-10 01:11:40

Was happy to speak at the Bitcoin Policy Summit in DC this morning about why I think Bitcoin is valuable. https://youtu.be/1yzuEipN-D0?si=jdY1gmagoD4xi4Zj

2024-04-03 18:19:25

- reply

Not an argument. Thanks for playing.

2024-04-03 18:15:54

Land taxes are the most defensible form of taxation. Fight me.

2024-03-31 21:26:40

- reply

But the TLDR is that I think all radical individualism is always overly simplistic, and tends towards illiberal outcomes.

2024-03-31 21:20:49

Uh, my essay taking on The Sovereign Individual is getting very long. It's greater than a 20 minute read at this point. And I have also found myself bringing in Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia" into it. I am approaching my critiques very much through the lens of Epistemic Liberalism, that I've been kicking around. But yeah, this is going to be some deeply academic reading.

2024-03-31 03:09:06

More thoughts. docs.google.com/document/d/1cc…

2024-03-30 23:24:00

I Am An Epistemic Liberal. https://medium.com/@mike.brock/i-am-an-epistemic-liberal-8fac669245de

2024-03-30 20:56:42

- reply

It doesn't really matter what the technology is. At the end of the day, all technology is serving a purpose. That derives from human values and preferences. Technology is always used in an instrumentalist frame relative to its use -- which is always to serve a human end. This is basically just another way of repeating David Hume's famous insight, "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions".
The key to understanding this insight is understanding that any logical or rational system always serves a normative goal (a human passion). In other words, we don't do advanced industrial farming because the technology availed itself to us. We do it, because we want to eat more food, and the technology improved the fulfillment of that passion.
If you recognize this insight, you should be skeptical of ALL technological deterministic reasoning. The Sovereign Individual, Hyperbitcoinization, AI apocalypses, etc. Some of these things may have grains of truth in them, on a first principles basis about what social orders could be *possible* given these technologies. But possibility space is just that. The other part of the equation is the probability of outcomes within that probability space. So, when we ask ourselves, based on everything we know about human nature, culture, economics, do we think that these scenarios that the possibility space opened up by these technologies is a probable future?
I think the answer is no! No, it's not. Mainly because the entire conclusion rests on a technological deterministic argument! Which just doesn't epistemically make sense!

2024-03-30 19:52:34

Re-reading parts of The Sovereign Individual for the critique I'm writing about Davidson and Rees-Mogg's arguments, and the thing that really stands out at me -- and I think this is also a problem that the hyperbitcoinization crowd suffers from -- is this almost religious belief in technological determinism, as the way to predict the future.
Technology is a powerful driver of culture, and in some respects can just be considers part of culture, so it goes without saying that technology helps shape and influence society. I'd never argue against a thing. But I would generally argue against any thinking that views culture and politics as *downstream* of technology. It's a complex interplay between human nature, individual and group differences, economic conditions, political climate, etc. These things interact with each other. Technology doesn't just drive all the others towards some deterministic end. I think that's actually silly!

2024-03-29 20:03:26

I’m clearly going to have to take on the Sovereign Individual in my next Medium post. Too many people seem to think it’s a convincing preemptive counterpoint to everything I’m saying. Naturally, I think this is nonsense and I intend to argue why.

2024-03-26 05:26:24

- reply

I think Trump is a pretty dangerous figure. And if you think that's TDS, I'm not sure that I care.

2024-03-26 05:14:35

- reply

Dunno. When I hear members of my family and former friends referring to him as the most honest, down-to-earth politician of theirnlifetime, I just hear "I'm in a cult". Thats what my brain translates that to.

2024-03-26 05:02:07

- reply

Nah. They're kind of in a cult.

2024-03-26 04:54:11

- reply

But I'm not trying to reach it from the top down. I don't know what you're insisting on a directionality. Individual and collective interests can be in tension with each other, and the maxima of the latter seems to be highly contingent on some concept of the former. As demonstrated by collective action problems (see: tragedy of the commons, uncaptured negative exterbalities, incentive structures for non-violent dispute resolutions like rule-of-law).

2024-03-26 04:46:12

- reply

The idea that freedom means solely pursuing one's own chosen purpose, without regard for any broader social or ethical context, is a shallow and ultimately incoherent view. True freedom involves more than just individual choice - it requires taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions, recognizing our obligations to others and to society as a whole, and working to create the conditions that enable all people to pursue their own flourishing in a meaningful and sustainable way.
My personal opinion, and what I'm gesturing towards in all my arguments here is that a genuine conception of freedom must be grounded in a sense of shared purpose and common good, not just isolated individual preferences. It's about balancing personal autonomy with social responsibility, and understanding that our own well-being is deeply interconnected with the well-being of our communities and institutions.

2024-03-26 04:36:02

- reply

I think this is true. But the problem is even worse than this. I think things like anarcho-capitalism are basically a kind of neo-feudalism that is obsessed with self-justifying itself around a conception of property rights maximalism that claims to be libertarians on a first principles basis, while only paying attention to initial conditions and then falling back into a cold transactional logic from there.

2024-03-26 04:26:57

- reply

Liberal democracy is supposed to be a political answer to that question.

2024-03-26 04:16:15

- reply

I don't claim the common good exists in a foundationalist way. I am arguing that conception of it, is necessary for a stable society. You're the one that's insisting that any ethical foundation must be derived from purportedly self-evident truths or objective truths about individual rights. I make no such claim. Either about individual rights or collective rights.

2024-03-26 03:39:56

- reply

I sense you are a fan of Rothbard, et al. -- who, quite frankly I have almost nothing good to say about.

2024-03-26 03:38:28

- reply

How am I suffering from an ontological fallacy, exactly? I'm not the one insisting that the normative grounding of my ethics needs to be erased in any universalist natural rights theory. You're doing that. Not me.

2024-03-26 03:27:28

- reply

It's just as "real" as any social construct. Like language. Which is once again, why I think you're engaged in a kind of ontological fallacy.

2024-03-26 03:10:19

- reply

I think you're engaged in a kind of ontological fallacy here, where you insist there's something necessary to directionality. The collective interest and the individual interest can simply be in tension, and mediate each other. Insisting on a simplistic grounding, as say praxeology tries to do, to me, is just weird. It just rejects any kind of dynamical notion around competing equities, and demands a universal starting point.

2024-03-26 02:53:43

- reply

I definitely don't think that ought can be derived from is. I am firmly in Hume's camp.

2024-03-26 01:38:28

- reply

I am advancing my own category of what I call the “fascist impulse”, yes.
For me, fascism is better understood as an impulse in people to wield permanent political and economic power, by capitalizing on cynicism of polities, and using cultural control (propaganda) and pseudo-religious mythos to contain the political conservation in a cultural envelope, that leads to extreme depoliticization of the average member of the polity.
I think this more intellectually robust characterization of fascism was always staring political science in the face, if you just came at it from a little category theory, and some analytical moral epistemology.

2024-03-26 00:36:51

- reply

Kind of. And I think unconstrained libertarianism, particularly propertarian forms of libertarians are just outright fascist. See: Hans Hermann-Hoppe.

2024-03-26 00:12:54

- reply

Sure, I am trying to tighten up the category of what I think a fascist is. Guilty as charged.
I just think when you think about fascism as an impulse or a tendency and ground it in things like a the desire for strong leadership, the fear of social chaos and disorder, the resentment of perceived enemies and outsiders, and the longing for a sense of national or ethnic identity and purpose, you can kind of make sense of the apparent contradictions in someone like Gabbard, Trump or Bannon.
Basically all intellectualism boils down to just trying to formulate better categories, ultimately.
In other words, I’m trying to set aside the idealistic frame in which most political science tries to operate and say: guys, we’ve learned a lot of about human nature and how it operates in political economies, so there might be a more useful framing for understanding the apparent ideological contradictions we see … which are only contradictions in the idealist notions of these ideologies. But not contradictions at all, if reduced to core tendencies.
What I think is when you do this simple reframing, you can see the fascist golem for what it is. I actually think we try hard not to see it, and make bad mistakes trying to categorize it, because a synthesis like this has better explanatory power, in my view.
In conclusion, to me, fascism is better understood as an impulse in people to wield permanent political and economic power, by capitalizing on cynicism of polities, and using cultural control (propaganda) and pseudo-religious mythos to contain the political conservation in a cultural envelope, that leads to extreme depoliticization of the average member of the polity.

2024-03-25 23:57:54

- reply

The key point is that when these principles are taken to an extreme and divorced from any consideration of the common good or the social and institutional prerequisites for a stable and just society, they can lead to outcomes that are deeply problematic and that can create the conditions for more authoritarian and even fascistic forms of politics to take root.
Here's how this dynamic might play out:
If the principle of "don't aggress" is interpreted in a highly individualistic and atomistic way, it can lead to a view of society as nothing more than a collection of isolated individuals, each pursuing their own interests without regard for others. This can erode social bonds, undermine a sense of shared responsibility, and create a vacuum of meaning and purpose that can be filled by more authoritarian and collectivist ideologies.
Similarly, an absolutist conception of private property rights, without any recognition of the broader social context in which those rights are embedded, can lead to extreme inequalities of wealth and power, and a sense of disenfranchisement and resentment among those who feel left behind. This can create fertile ground for populist and nationalist movements that promise to restore a sense of belonging and purpose, even at the cost of individual freedoms.
Moreover, if the state is seen as nothing more than a "night watchman" whose sole purpose is to protect individual rights and property, it may lack the capacity and legitimacy to address collective challenges and provide the public goods and services necessary for a healthy and stable society. This can lead to a breakdown of trust in public institutions and a further erosion of the social fabric, creating openings for more authoritarian forms of governance to fill the void.
To be clear, none of this is to suggest that the principles of individual rights, private property, and non-aggression are inherently fascistic or that they inevitably lead to authoritarianism. Rather, the point is that when these principles are taken to an extreme and abstracted from the broader social and political context in which they are necessarily embedded, they can have unintended and dangerous consequences.
This is why thinkers in the classical liberal tradition, and more recently those associated with "state capacity libertarianism" and "liberal nationalism," have emphasized the need to balance these principles with a strong conception of the common good and a recognition of the positive role that effective and accountable government can play in securing the conditions for individual freedom and social flourishing.

2024-03-25 23:50:35

- reply

I think you’re mostly getting my idea. I think it’s also worth mentioning that in many ways, classical liberals like say Locke and Jefferson, were in their own ways, skeptical of libertarianism (even though they didn’t have a word for it) as a standalone ideological orientation, hence the fact they were social contract theorists — which by definition is trying to mediate individual rights against some conception of the common good.
I’d go further and suggest that the emergence of state capacity libertarian and liberal nationalist thought are both re-evaluations of these insights by a bunch of former libertarianism and neoliberals who have recognized this very danger and are now trying to cope with it, in a contemporaneous conversation.

2024-03-25 19:42:00

- reply

I will try to respond with as much academic clarity as possible, to avoid any misunderstanding of exactly what I mean when I talk about uncontained libertarianism:
Libertarianism, while a vital force for individual freedom and resistance against tyranny, can become self-defeating and enable fascism when taken to an extreme and not constrained by a commitment to the common good. The libertarian focus on individual liberty and skepticism of collective action, when unmoored from any conception of public interest or social responsibility, can erode the very foundations of a free and open society.
By making epistemic arguments against the possibility or knowability of the common good, radical libertarianism can fuel a market fundamentalism that concentrates power in the hands of the wealthy, dismantles social protections, and undermines the capacity for democratic self-governance. This atomistic individualism creates a vacuum of meaning and solidarity that is easily exploited by fascist demagogues promising a return to unity and purpose through authoritarianism. Thus, an improperly contained libertarianism that rejects any notion of the public good or legitimate government can paradoxically enable a far greater threat to human freedom in the form of fascist tyranny. The libertarian impulse must be balanced with a commitment to the rule of law, democratic institutions, and some conception of our shared responsibilities and interests as a society.

2024-03-25 17:31:54

- reply

Of course it has to be contained. The individual is not the only equity in a society. There must be a social interest considered, as a prerequisite to encouraging cooperation, rather than violence.

2024-03-25 05:53:30

Yes! #note1kcg…hae2

2024-03-25 01:07:12

- reply

Liberal aristocracies can form, can be corrupt, and can run amok. But that doesn’t make them fascists. It’s why they’re haunted by their mistakes, and waste away painting dead soldiers. It’s not that it’s not a failure of liberalism. It’s just that, well, it maintained the pretense. That at least counted for something. These fascists … there’s no pretense.

2024-03-25 01:04:05

- reply

None of these people served the fascists, actually. But Nixon was a cheap date, to be fair.

2024-03-24 23:57:30

- reply

“He is, after all, very stupid and very easy to control. And he’s ours. Good boy, Donald.”

2024-03-24 23:55:43

In the guerrilla warfare against liberalisms institutions, the demagogue is always a tool of the fascist, and never the true fascist himself. Lenin. Stalin. Should Germany have prevailed, we might have found who Hitler’s true heir would have been. And it comes again … Trump. I promise you he’s just step one of the plan.

2024-03-24 23:29:11

- reply

Mine involves two precepts: cooperation is better than violence. And the truth can be known. The fascist doesn’t really care which one of these he needs to disabuse you of. It only takes one. He’s happy to talk the language of Capitalism (Putin) or Communism (Xi) to you. Whatever it takes to get you to take a knee, and admit there’s no point in fighting it.

2024-03-24 23:20:39

- reply

Although, I can imagine having it framed this way, could conceivably cause one to question for themselves, whether they want to be one?

2024-03-24 23:19:16

- reply

If you read my narrative here, and your sentiments are the exact inverse of how I framed it here … then you are a fascist.

2024-03-24 22:44:40

The liberals thought we did a pretty good job at fascist containment. But the fascist laid low and found weaknesses. It always knew if it was going to take down liberalism, it was going to be from the inside. So it buried itself in its institutions, and started looking for weaknesses.
When the time was just right, the fascists surrounded both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party (and yes, this is very much an America-centric conversation), and out popped populists on the left, and populists on the right. The 2008 Financial Crisis was the moment they waited for.
This is where all the famous “libertarians” line Rockwell, and Block and Hoppe, send out their troops to seize the Republican Party. They knew what they had to do. Goebbels had it all written down for them. He passed on the fascists knowledge of how to weaponize the human spirit against itself.
So it sought to establish the media infrastructure that would ultimately become the replacement media, having fully discredited the establishment, elevate a fool like Donald Trump, who we can control, with his stupid narcissism. But we’ve made the masses just so mad enough at the elites, and fueled this culture war, so expertly to bring us to this moment … that in your anger, which they so expertly controlled, as their father Goebbels intended of you, that you will hand control of your precious stupid little liberal institutions over to us. And our friends Putin, and Orban are waiting for us guys. “Let’s put these liberal fuckers down for good. We just need to get rid of thjs Trump guy, right after he blows this whole constitution thing up.” Then they’ll figure out what to do with Beijing and their Eastern totalitarianism, which they think is way less sexy than their paeanistic stuff. So they’ll fight that out later.

2024-03-24 21:32:56

It’s what makes the Austrian school such a pernicious school of thought in my mind. It’s why its produced so many outright fascists! Its goal is to convince the liberal by their predilections to reason, to give up on any notion of a Greater Good.
Its goal is two-fold: to convince you there is no Greater Good (to sell you on cynicism). But if you’re just too romantic for that, convince you it’s impossible to know what the Greater Good is (so why try? Leave it to the market!)
The fascist wants to convince you of that, because he’s got big plans. And you’re in them. #note10u7…9n5a

2024-03-24 21:29:21

- reply

It’s what makes the Austrian school such a pernicious school of thought in my mind. It’s why it’s produced so many outright fascists! It’s goal is to convince the liberal by their predilections to reason, to give up on any notion of a Greater Good.

2024-03-24 21:25:55

It always made perfect sense that fascists travelled in libertarian circles. There should have been, in retrospect, nothing at all surprising about it. If libertarianism is not met by a representative of the collective interest, fascism just comes out the other side. It should come as no surprise to true liberals that the fascist would want to convince you there is no collective interest. They’ll never convince socialists of that. That’s why they whisper in your ear.

2024-03-24 21:10:53

The libertarian impulse is a beautiful, necessary and emancipatory part of the human spirit. Without it, we’d all already be in bondage. Or dead. But the libertarian impulse, improperly contained is ultimately self-destructive and closes in on its own contradictions. It should actually not that all be surprising, to find that when, uncontained, its contradictions emerge in the fascist tendency.

2024-03-20 17:00:06

Someone privately asked me why I am wasting my time refuting the hyperbitcoinization narrative. They suggested that if I’m right, it doesn’t matter in the end. They also suggested this represents an unnecessary argument *within* the bitcoin conversation.
One, I don’t feel like I’m wasting my time at all. Because my goal isn’t even to convince people who hold the view that hyperbitcoinization is inevitable. In fact, given their predilection for simple, self-consistent narratives and their tendency to dismiss my attempts as nuance as a “lack of critical thinking skills”, I don’t actually expect to convince them of anything. But I do want to debate them, if for no other reason than I can test the strength of my own ideas. Which for me, is pretty important to being intellectually honest with one’s self. Alas, it does not surprise me that they refuse the opportunity of debate. Because, well, you can guess where I’m going.
The audience for things like this are always the unconvinced. The people who are coming to bitcoin for the first time and trying to make sense of it. I seek to give them a theory of bitcoin I think makes sense, and steers it towards its potential. That focuses people on believable use cases, that will hopefully, on balance direct research and development into more productive products and ideas.
Also, I am just generally fascinated by people who think they have everything figured out, and can smugly claim that something in the future is “inevitable”. I’ve never thought anything about the future is inevitable. To me, the future is an epistemic fog-of-war. The fact some people think they see it with overwhelming clarity (even in the narrow issue of money and markets) by playing forward some theory from a first principles foundation, says to me something about human nature that, quite frankly, I see as the seeds of fanaticism at worst, and sophistry at best.
As for the worry that I’m trying to create unnecessary discord within the bitcoin conversation, this just offends my intellectual and truth-seeking sensibilities. If I think something is wrong, and I feel strongly enough about it that I want to say something about it, then I’m going to. I don’t know what to tell you. Suggesting that it’s counterproductive to engage in a debate against a relatively popular strain of thought, in a field I work in, that I think is wrong, is just bizarre to me.
It’s the anti-intellectual golem showing up again.

2024-03-20 16:26:11

- reply

I offer it here! https://medium.com/@mike.brock/bitcoin-maximalism-is-dead-long-live-bitcoin-36df4ba12eff

2024-03-20 04:17:28

https://medium.com/@mike.brock/hyperbitcoinization-wont-happen-because-political-economy-is-important-and-nobody-understands-it-a19543b98489

2024-03-18 18:04:56

When the crux of your argument is to just start demanding the other party subscribe to more simplistic categories of thought, you’re through the Dunning-Kruger looking class.
When they start dismissing nuance and complexity as a lack of critical thinking skills, you know you’ve come face to face with the golem of anti-intellectualism.

2024-03-16 15:47:18

Culture is an emergent epistemology. The relationship between an emergent epistemology and a person is the person's belief that it is best for their sentiments and goals.

2024-03-15 02:14:50

I had a thought. Seemed important. So I wrote it down in this Google Doc. Thought about making it a Medium post. But a Google Doc will do (warning: I reserve the right to keep editing it): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N9mgt-1wmqQFMeUrh7joYe351FpcuEQVCa0CxNTTIqM/edit

2024-03-13 19:06:21

- reply

Well, unlike a lot of people in this space, I actually think we need to protect our institutions in order to protect liberty. I think the people who argue the government should have no power to mediate any of these issues, are literally the useful idiots of authoritarians around the world.

2024-03-13 19:03:14

- reply

The CCP is bad. The end.

2024-03-13 18:57:11

- reply

*then

2024-03-13 18:55:51

I have literally no problem with the US government forcing divestment of TikTok by ByteDance. None. I don't see how they can "ban" it without running afoul of the First Amendment -- and should they try to engage in direct censorship of the platform through something like mandatory filtering by ISPs, I'll be right there with you all.
But if you think forcing a Chinese company, serving the interests of the Chinese Communist Party, that wants to spy on our kids, and manipulate their worldview, with the goal of destabilizing our institutions is "all's fair love and war", due to some highfalutin libertarian principle, than you're actually a moron.

2024-03-13 17:44:10

Continue to be amused by people who get angry and animated about my "obviously wrong" opinions about Bitcoin, without fault, refuse to debate me live when I offer to do so. Usually because I'm "not worth [their] time".
If I'm so out of my depth, why not make a fool of me, and take the W? These people spend large amounts of their time deeply in the bitcoin discussion, get offended by my contributions to it, but don't have the time to engage.
I'll be honest, I'm starting to think it's because they're worried I'll wipe the floor with them. Not that they're managing their highly valuable time.
🤷🏻‍♂️

2024-03-13 00:41:51

- reply

If the market is producing a risk signal, then of course, that will affect the decisions of policymakers. So the answer is yes.

2024-03-12 19:31:20

- reply

I think you’re misreading my point. I *am* saying the equilibria lies within the state-based model. I’m not saying it will win because states are powerful. I’m saying it will win because people want states, and for those states to have certain powers — like enforcing rule-of-law and managing economic stability.

2024-03-12 19:03:11

My latest Medium post (I’m basically at one-per-year at this point) https://medium.com/@mike.brock/bitcoin-maximalism-is-dead-long-live-bitcoin-36df4ba12eff

2023-12-14 16:06:27

Saying you choose to abstain, because you don't believe in settling for the least bad option is political equivalent of saying "the cancer will definitely kill me. But the chemotherapy is really bad for my body, and I want nothing to do with that. So it's tragic if the cancer eats me alive, but I want nothing to do with my hair falling out."

2023-12-02 14:44:09

The more certain you are, the less you know. This isn't some throw away line. The more you foreclose the possibility of being wrong, the less likely you are to listen to arguments against your beliefs, or believe evidence that contravenes it.
I look around, and I see more and more people enslaved to a rabid certainty of what's right and what the future holds.
If you start a sentence with "nothing can convince me ..." you might well say "let me warn you, I'm a closed-minded zealot on this particular topic."

2023-11-16 20:00:56

- reply

I think he’ll win.

2023-11-16 12:53:43

- reply

Cynicism is the tool of evil. It is the pathway to apathy and depoliticization. There is nothing that autocrats and would-be tyrants want more than for people to through up their hands and say: “Democracy? Dictatorship? What difference does it make?” In fact, this is the goal of the political propaganda of tyrants. It’s why regimes like Putin’s sells cynicism — “we’re not worse than America. Look at what they’ve done.” Too many people in these conversations are playing along.

2023-11-14 15:03:52

- reply

I’ll let you in on my mind-blowing approach to predicting the future. Here it goes … are you ready for it? I’m not a cynical discontent.

2023-10-28 20:43:48

- reply

Well, you're explaining something they're romantic about.

2023-10-28 19:31:31

One thing that doesn't get talked about ever, is what left-progressives, libertarians and anarchists all have in common: they all have excessively romantic notions about unconstrained human nature. The power structures they're focused on don't necessarily overlap in big ways. But the mistake is the same.

2023-10-28 18:54:42

Ultimately, problem with acting and justifying action in purely deontological terms, is consequences don't care about your moral sentiments. Wars are just battles. It's the peace that must be won.

2023-10-28 18:41:40

There is no final destination awaiting us if we can just get through today's struggles. Our civilization of liberty is a ship that sails through endless waters. Through calm seas, and through storms. The ship could sink. Our job is to keep it seaworthy. And make no mistake ... those are storm clouds on the horizon.

2023-10-27 14:30:12

- reply

Wages are literally the biggest driver of the PCE. By far. This is not breaking new ground, here.

2023-10-27 14:27:22

- reply

Yes. The definition of being poor is to have no excess income. Which, by definition, means no capacity to accumulate savings.
Poor people are not getting poorer because the cash under their mattress is losing spending power. This is just a wrong way to think about it.

2023-10-27 14:25:25

- reply

#nevent1q…j6ht

2023-10-27 14:16:30

- reply

Moreover, the value of savings is tied to the productive capacity of the economy. If an economy is more productive, each unit of saved currency can command more real goods and services in the future. However, if an economy’s productivity stagnates or declines, the real value of savings may decrease, regardless of whether the nominal amount of money saved grows.

2023-10-27 14:11:44

- reply

My point is the temporal nature of savings is a social construct. Even with sound money, it's not a perfect proxy for the availability of capital, nor does it account for capital depreciation across time, relative to the production in which the savings were accumulated.
You can do some basic thought experiments here to realize how this concept is purely normative.
Let's say you diligently saved up bitcoin for your whole life, and then suddenly, one day, every factory in the planet shut down. For whatever reason. Alien mind control, whatever. The point is you just have to imagine everyone stopped making "stuff" all at once.
What would your bitcoin be "worth"?
It's a silly example, but it reveals the socially contingent nature of all of this.

2023-10-27 14:05:12

- reply

People don't climb out of poverty by saving. They climb out of poverty by climbing the income ladder, and then diverting excess income into savings.