Nostr Web Client

A really great read and also one of my major critiques of many modern libertarian and bitcoiner thought…we combat central govt control and then enter into a volunteeristic utopia is a myth.

We’re seeing it slowly start to play out today of where power concentrates to. From one bad system (complete federal govt control) to another bad system (private, capital, oligarchy).

Reality is, solutions to todays problems and politics are complicated, mixed, context and geographic specific.

https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/from-madisons-vision-to-musks-dystopia

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

vinney...axkl 10mo ago

Its possible to advocate for the withering of state power without also actively supporting the building of other systems of (private) control.

The problem with Starlink, for example, isn't that its privately-held or connected to Musk, it's that it isn't an open protocol. TCI/IP itself doesn't have this problem.

I generally agree that "cheering for privatization" is not the correct impulse for a libertarian, but "cheering for open protocols" is. And that move is tangential to whether the state or a private entity is the thing you're cheering.

Trey Walsh 10mo ago

Agreed about open protocols where we can for technology, like nostr and bitcoin

My bigger concern are the messy things like power, politics, sociological and human organization affairs. It’s a more complex problem to address imo

vinney...axkl 10mo ago

You're right that I am probably overly optimistic that fixing the base layers propagates solutions to the "messier" parts of the world.

My biggest weakness is that I have high confidence that if you start from layers built from pure consent and voluntaryism, then the structures that emerge on top preserve those properties. (And similarly, that if you start off with sacrifices on those principles at upper layers and build backwards simultaneously, the two ends won't meet up)

Ultimately I think this is an empirical question. But I'm heartened to see it slowly being experimented on in cyberspace. If it can cross into physical reality (and at what scale?) is yet to be seen. But I 100% don't think that's what we're seeing in the US government today... Which makes me feel like this article is arguing a straw man to some degree

Trey Walsh 10mo ago

Valid optimism and fair critic of mike’s argument

vinney...axkl 10mo ago

To wit:

> We're witnessing a modern East India Company scenario: a private entity (SpaceX) controls critical infrastructure (Starlink) that a sovereign nation (Ukraine) depends on for its very survival. Meanwhile, the U.S. government uses this private leverage to demand natural resources, effectively treating Ukraine as a colony to be exploited rather than an ally to be supported

Imagine if it was Bitcoin (or another open protocol) that Ukraine relied on. By what lever would any single, centralized powerful entity threaten them? Ukraine would be free from centralized coercion, and that liberty wouldn't be achieved via "proper regulation by a proper democracy", nor from benevolent private sector megacorps.

Diacone Frost 10mo ago

spaceX might be legally private corp. Truth is that they live from US taxpayers money.

the gov is the problem. corps do what's good for them. And they should.

govs should not have this power/money in the first place.

That argument that libertarians/ancap push for corporate dystopia is false.

Trey Walsh 10mo ago

I think the argument is not that libertarians push for corporate dystopia, but rather there isn’t a solution from them that prevents that outcome.

Not saying I fully agree, but that’s the argument and I also have some concerns. Best argument perhaps is open source based tools, and rules not rulers however we can apply this.

Contra 10mo ago

This is a solid distinction. Advocating for the reduction of state power doesn’t necessarily mean endorsing private control as a replacement, it can mean advocating for open, decentralized alternatives instead.

The Starlink example is apt: the issue isn’t just that it’s privately owned, but that it operates as a closed system, reinforcing centralized control rather than enabling broader access. In contrast, something like TCP/IP embodies the kind of open protocol ethos that libertarians (or anyone skeptical of concentrated power) should favor.

Privatization in itself isn’t inherently good or bad. It depends on whether it results in more openness and choice or just shifts control from one centralized entity to another. Cheering for open protocols rather than just privatization gets at the heart of that distinction.

vinney...axkl 10mo ago

Brought the conversation to substack, too, because why should they miss out?! :D

https://open.substack.com/pub/mikebrock/p/from-madisons-vision-to-musks-dystopia?r=67xh9&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=95420407

Captain's Nostr Log 10mo ago

based

Mitch 10mo ago

1000x this. This is the new system. This is the vision I hope Bitcoin brings about long term.

Rand 10mo ago

Subcontractorz