We have to build more Bitcoin & Monero circular economies

I think metaphysics not only should but _must_ precede epistemology and ethics (and I'd put politics and economics in the larger category of ethics--i.e., "how should we treat one another?").

Denying God, you must agree, is an equally strong bias to start with?

I'm not sure...I would have no North Star, no 'measuring stick' against which to test things--knowing that I myself am infinite and fallible. I don't mean to be trite or spin platitudes, but it's something quite like what C. S. Lewis said: "I don't believe in the sun because I can see it, but because by it I can see everything else." I really don't know the answer to that question otherwise, but I appreciate you asking it.

What frameworks are you guys using? React etc? I'm building new Nostr integrations that might be useful to you.

I would agree with that first point, for sure. Yes, _Ethics of Liberty_ was helpful, even if inconsistent (I think of his lousy pro-"choice" arguments--abortion is a clear violation of the NAP).

Thank you. Will check these out. I'm very interested to ensure that my political and economic views are in alignment with, and flow from, my ultimate metaphysical and epistemological convictions--i.e., Christian Theism. I've heard that Hoppe was greatly influenced by Jurgen Moltmann (a Critical theorist), so I've been somewhat hesitant to jump in, but I'm wiling to hear him out. From what little I've heard, it sounds like his 'argumentation ethics' may even have some overlap with what -- in other circles -- we call _presuppositional apologetics_. But I could be way off on that.

It was a pain to build but looking back it wasn't really that terrible tbh.

The big win is fully understanding what is happening under the hood when the client makes requests to relays. That was a big frustration with every other lib

It is! Sadly the greater context is not one I can appreciate, coming from a biblical worldview. He gets so many things right, and has so many worthy sensibilities, but his foundation is "sinking sand." I haven't read his "epistemological problems" yet, but I've always wanted to apply some Van Til to Mises and see what happens.

nostr-tools helps with some stuff but we made our own nostr websocket framework that plays nice with React and zustand. We leaned heavily into caching and created some nice lambda APIs to handle nostr queries too

Well, it would give a more solid ground to his argumentation. Neither rationalism nor irrationalism can provide that. He takes things for granted for which his metaphysical and epistemological assumptions cannot account--some would call this "living on borrowed capital." As it stands, he argues very well from the starting point that _humans act_, and deduces from there--but there are important facts to consider that are logically prior to that starting point that should influence his downstream argumentation. You'll likely pick up that I'm referring to the debate between revelation and reason as competing sources of knowledge--when, for my part, I agree with one philosopher who has said "reason is, itself, a revelation."

We made our own core nostr system.

(We haven't released the software yet)

Maybe his attempts at value-free analysis made him avoid embracing natural law at any point explicitly.

Rothbard touched upon this in the first chapter of Ethics of Liberty. It gives a primer on why different groups tend to dismiss natural law.

much like Bitcoin, good philosophy and economics doesn't care what you wish of it :)

...you're right to challenge my 'natural order of things' -- that's probably reading too much into that passage. He only refers to 'nature' and he probably means less by that than I wish he did! 😅

Good eye, brother. 🤜🤛

Gone from #Nostr are many users I used to follow. People who used to write daily and now write nothing.

This is not a good sign.

What TF just happened in the markets? was something announced or something?

Call for recommendations

Decent Newsroom is launching a magazine and we need your help!

Newsroom magazine is going to contain Nostr long-form articles only. Who's your favorite Nostr writer? Which article made you stop and think? Which story did you enjoy? Drop your recommendations in the comments and let us know what you love.

Your picks will help shape a magazine that represents the spirit of open content publishing. Join us on this journey and share your top content suggestions!

free identifiers

Imposters are why I do this work.

Thank you.

How do we keep cointards out of nostr.

ad hominems don’t have any bearing on the argument, correct.

you didn’t want to wrestle with the argument, just make obtuse red herrings and non secquitars, all under the pretense of being taken serious.

you should be mocked for such behavior. ad hominems are great for that

Centralized services 🤔

I thought the same thing!

Check out below for the origin story lol

nostr:note1qwzp92645ahk8ce8u9svll9sfarggedp3t7a47828gyq7xurry3q89azah

The Explore app is a great one if you have no other option

I am. What's buy-in? Id maybe be able to go in on 0.1btc

We all knew it was happening but now we have hard proof: the US Federal government has been stealing your money and TIME via taxes and debt expansion and using it to destroy the country.

Treason of the highest level. There should be a tax holiday in 2025 and serious conversations about shutting down the IRS.

The amount of pain and suffering people have had to endure over the last few decades while getting lambasted by snobby bureaucrats who were lining their pockets while telling everyone they were "spreading democracy and freedom" is incalculable.

The greatest heist in human history. Pure evil.

what's to come in the year ahead:

what's to come in the year ahead:

• Scaling production to shorten ship times

• Making the DC-1 consistently available (moving away from deposits)

• Launching more of our own accessories

• Releasing Sol:OS 1.0

• And so much more more !

stay tuned for the latest updates 🌞

This is actually fun.

I copy-pasted this and asked ChatGPT, 'How would a libertarian counter these counter-points?':

Here's the response I got:

'Here's a libertarian counter to each of these socialist rebuttals:

1. Against Mises's Calculation Problem (Lange-Lerner Model & Computer Planning)

Counter: The Lange-Lerner model assumes an omniscient central planner who can set prices through trial and error, but this approach fails because it lacks real market competition. Prices in a free market emerge from the voluntary interactions of countless individuals, each making decentralized decisions based on local knowledge. Centralized computing, no matter how advanced, cannot replicate the dynamic, real-time adjustments of a market where profits and losses act as crucial feedback. Even modern AI cannot substitute for the entrepreneurial process, which relies on dispersed, tacit knowledge that cannot be fully captured in data.

2. Against Hayek’s Knowledge Problem (Big Data & Algorithmic Planning)

Counter: Companies like Amazon and Walmart succeed because they operate within a market framework, responding to price signals and competition. They do not centrally plan the entire economy; rather, they optimize within a larger market system that provides pricing and consumer preference information. Even in a single corporation, decision-making is hierarchical yet still subject to external market discipline. Without market competition, socialist planners would lack the incentives and discovery mechanisms necessary to allocate resources efficiently.

3. Against Rothbard’s Ownership Problem (Worker Cooperatives & Collective Ownership)

Counter: While cooperatives exist, they do so within a capitalist framework where competition and price signals guide decisions. Historically, large-scale collective ownership has led to the tragedy of the commons, bureaucratic inefficiency, and lack of individual accountability. Worker cooperatives tend to be rare, and when they do succeed, they often mimic market-based incentives (e.g., Mondragon competes in the market and uses internal wage differentials). Private ownership aligns responsibility with decision-making, ensuring that resources are stewarded efficiently.

4. Against Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics (Property Rights as Arbitrary Constraints)

Counter: Argumentation ethics shows that denying private property contradicts itself, as arguing presupposes control over one's body (self-ownership) and external resources (speech, writing tools, etc.). Limiting property rights arbitrarily undermines individual autonomy, as people must control resources to exercise freedom. Socialist models that permit state or collective ownership inevitably lead to coercion, where some individuals (politicians, bureaucrats) have decision-making power over others’ lives.

5. Against Bastiat’s Seen/Unseen (Capitalism’s Externalities & Hidden Costs)

Counter: Capitalism internalizes externalities better than socialism because property rights create incentives for individuals to bear the costs of their actions. Pollution, for example, can be addressed through private property claims (e.g., suing polluters for damages) rather than bureaucratic controls that are often captured by special interests. Socialism does not eliminate externalities—it merely shifts them to government planners who have little accountability.

6. Against Saifedean’s Time Preference (Socialist Long-Term Investment Examples)

Counter: High savings rates in socialist economies often result from coercion, not voluntary preference (e.g., forced industrialization in the USSR, state-directed investment in China). These projects frequently led to resource misallocation, famine, and stagnation. Private ownership and free markets create incentives for long-term planning because entrepreneurs and investors bear the direct consequences of bad decisions. Capitalism allows individuals to express their time preferences freely, whereas socialism imposes a one-size-fits-all model that often results in inefficiency and waste.

7. Against Menger’s Subjective Value (Market Socialism with Consumer Goods, but Public Ownership of Production)

Counter: Market socialism fails because real entrepreneurship requires ownership. Even if consumer goods markets exist, without private ownership of the means of production, the system lacks the profit-and-loss mechanism necessary for rational economic decision-making. Public ownership means bureaucratic decision-making replaces entrepreneurial discovery, leading to inefficiency. Capitalism allows subjective value to be expressed fully through voluntary exchange, whereas socialism restricts choice through central planning.

8. Against Böhm-Bawerk’s Capital Theory (Planned Capital Allocation with Modern Computing & State Investment Banks)

Counter: State-led investment distorts natural capital allocation by replacing market-driven risk assessment with political priorities. Governments, unlike private investors, do not bear personal financial risk, leading to inefficiency and misallocation (e.g., failed state-run projects, white elephant infrastructure). Private capital markets are superior because they reward efficient capital allocation and punish failure through bankruptcy. No mathematical model can replicate the dynamic entrepreneurial discovery process that capitalism fosters.

Final Thought

Socialist counterarguments often assume that problems in capitalism justify government intervention without considering the failures of state planning. Libertarianism argues that voluntary, decentralized decision-making via private property and free markets remains the most effective way to allocate resources, adapt to changing conditions, and ensure individual freedom.'

I did it:

I'll provide academic counterarguments that socialists have historically made to each of these critiques:

1. Against Mises's Calculation Problem:

Lange-Lerner model argues that socialist economies can simulate market mechanisms using computers and iterative price adjustments. Modern socialists also point to large corporations successfully planning internal resource allocation without market prices, and suggest similar methods could work at scale with modern computing power.

2. Against Hayek's Knowledge Problem:

Modern information technology and big data analytics can aggregate and process decentralized information more effectively than 1940s-era planning. Companies like Amazon and Walmart already demonstrate successful large-scale planning using algorithmic coordination.

3. Against Rothbard's Ownership Problem:

Common ownership can create collective responsibility through democratic workplace control. Cooperatives and worker-owned enterprises demonstrate that collective ownership can lead to better resource stewardship than private ownership, as workers have direct stakes in long-term sustainability.

4. Against Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics:

This conflates personal autonomy with private property rights. One can believe in self-ownership while rejecting absolute property rights, similar to how democratic societies limit property rights without violating personal autonomy.

5. Against Bastiat's Seen/Unseen:

This critique applies equally to capitalism's hidden costs (environmental degradation, social alienation, inequality). Socialist planning can better account for externalities and long-term consequences than profit-driven markets.

6. Against Saifedean's Time Preference:

Many socialist societies demonstrated high savings rates and long-term investment (USSR's industrialization, China's infrastructure development). Public ownership can potentially take an even longer view than private capital constrained by quarterly profits.

7. Against Menger's Subjective Value:

Modern market socialism proposes using market mechanisms for consumer goods while maintaining social ownership of production means. This preserves price signals for subjective preferences while preventing capital exploitation.

8. Against Böhm-Bawerk's Capital Theory:

Socialist planning can incorporate time structure of production through mathematical modeling and modern computing. Success of state development banks and public investment in many countries shows effective capital allocation is possible without pure market mechanisms.

These are theoretical academic counterarguments that socialists have made - their practical effectiveness remains debated.

In response to that, try saying: "now give me the best socialist counter-argument for each of these points".

I hand-picked certain classical liberal/libertarian intellectuals and asked ChatGPT to describe briefly how they debunked Socialism.

Here's what it responded with:

1. Mises – Economic Calculation Problem: Without market-driven prices, socialist economies lack a mechanism for rational resource allocation, leading to inefficiency, waste, and economic collapse due to the impossibility of effective central planning.

2. Hayek – Knowledge Problem: Economic knowledge is decentralised and constantly changing; central planners cannot access or process this information effectively, making socialist planning inherently flawed and inferior to spontaneous order in free markets.

3. Rothbard – Ownership Problem: Socialism divorces ownership from responsibility, resulting in mismanagement, waste, and perverse incentives where resources are depleted rather than preserved, as no individual has direct accountability for their use.

4. Hoppe – Argumentation Ethics: Socialists deny self-ownership and property rights but rely on them when arguing, making socialism philosophically self-contradictory, as rational discourse presupposes individual control over one's body and actions.

5. Bastiat – Seen and Unseen: Socialists ignore unintended consequences, focusing only on immediate benefits while neglecting hidden economic costs, such as wealth destruction, inefficiency, and reduced innovation caused by government intervention.

6. Saifedean – Time Preference: Socialism raises societal time preference by discouraging savings and investment, leading to short-term consumption, economic stagnation, and deterioration of capital accumulation necessary for long-term prosperity and civilization-building.

7. Menger – Subjective Value Theory: Socialism fails because value is subjective, not intrinsic; only free markets can determine prices based on individual preferences, making socialist price-setting arbitrary, inefficient, and economically destructive.

8. Böhm-Bawerk – Capital and Interest: Socialism misunderstands capital structure and time preference, failing to account for how interest rates coordinate production over time, leading to resource misallocation and economic stagnation under central planning. have debunked Socialism.

Vinney's crazy test account