Nostr Web Client

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.

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.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

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.