Murray Rothbard talked about how utilitarianism cannot get libertarianism right, but I think that is misguided: a proper understanding of utilitarianism in the broadest sense across a society (which is hard to achieve) is always equivalent to the natural law reading of things, because adherence to the natural law is what brings about prosperity in all cases when we define our rational actors with a sufficiently advanced understanding and long time horizon. Utilitarianism and positivism are thus extremely prone to error. It is an inefficient way of getting to the same answer that rational analysis provides, but it can yield interesting new details, particular states of affairs, and further hints for questions of rational inquiry, thus occasional empirical analysis is a welcome complement to the a priori rational method, in my view.
🤣 🤣 🤣 The one thing that a second Trump presidency is undoubtedly going to provide is high entertainment value.
A masterpiece that nostr:npub1cj8znuztfqkvq89pl8hceph0svvvqk0qay6nydgk9uyq7fhpfsgsqwrz4u shared on twitter. This had to be a nightmare editing project, lol.
Lmao, Jack FM played Without Me on the radio on the morning of the 6th, and I immediately imagined something like this. It's so goofy lol!
I think these two outlooks converge if you are thinking deeply enough about it. What is higher in utility is achievable through better quality savings. Utilitarians who reject sound money are not consistent utilitarians. They're just doing it wrong and if they wanted to do it right and had occasion to go over the facts, they'd accept sound money. Else they keep deluding themselves. The Friedmans are mixed on that account but they far surpass most "economists" outside the Austrian school.
Got back on x to try to reach more people, mostly to yell at Elon Musk to be more libertarian.
Not yet haha! They're adding on alternatives through BRICS pay though, right?
I'm too loud to fully embrace this mantra. But I have learned to not cast my pearls before what I have verified is swine. Save energy, focus on what's most important.
That's not core to their arguments for these systems however. They wanted predictability and taking it out of the hands of arbitrary issuers, precisely because of the perverse incentives of the central bank, the lack of predictability or reliability, and the bias and misunderstanding of a board of governors unequipped with the information to dictate policy for the genuine benefit of the broad public.
The assumption of the necessity of inflation is merely a side concern subject to independent reevaluation in the positivist's view. This is information that would feed into the specific parameters of the algorithm of Milton's monetary policy machine or into the basket of commodities used for David's commodity-pegged network. It does not change the essential nature of those machines, of which Bitcoin is the full implementation.
When a Friedmanite identifies the broad effects of deflationary money, with its provision of retirement accounts for the average worker, its tendency to reduce overconsumption, the proclivity for the market to start to address externalities on its own, its freeing up resources for longer term thinking, cultural flourishing, more efficient investment, etc., the Friedmanite acquiesces, embracing hard money. I did. It is the only rational way, even for an economic positivist, in the face of both the logic and the evidence.
#Friedmanite economists, such as Milton Friedman or David Friedman themselves, have expounded the benefits of relegating monetary policy to more predictably responsive systems than a human-guided central bank.
Milton advocated a predictable algorithm run exclusively by computers. David advocated a free-market, decentralized, commodity-backed monetary network of rational issuers. Bitcoin is the full realization of both, in addition to being the sly, roundabout way to a new standard that Hayek foresaw.
#Bitcoin is Friedmanite Money just as well as Austrian money.
I like the 50 Cent version of this quote
Lmao, zero principles. What a sad little existence statist slaves have.
Weak people ask for permission to merely be themselves, to even exist, or try to force others to do the same.
Strong people ask for permission to use your capital or they'll keep going until they find some, or create it themselves, and when they have it, they use it to simply be themselves, unashamedly, permissionless, unique, sovereign, unassuming, nonviolent, and powerful. They tend to inspire other strong people to do the same.
Beyond "Beyond Good and Evil," this is how morality really works. Friedrich Nietzsche only got half the picture, as is common when you put the cart before the horse. True power comes from nonviolence, curiosity, and logic. Nietzsche was ironically too weak to see that master morality is just the outwardly directed form of slave morality. He was a slave to his own mental hangups, and he projected this onto other people like Stoics and Christians. Entrepreneur and philanthropist morality are the two sides of the source of true power, true goodness. They are the creative forms of morality, whereas master and slave morality are the destructive forms.
#philosophy
To everyone who has been zapping me, thank you!! I can't tell where they're coming from or in some instances what they're on, because I'm having trouble seeing the notifications on Amethyst. But I really appreciate them!
All the while we've been engaging in Coasian side bargains to work our way to a truly free market. The free parts of the market will eventually win out and result in the creative destruction of even the most powerful criminals.
Nah it reduces from more than just charity. But yes state run handouts are a shitcoin.
It takes curiosity, logic, and creativity to convert thoughts into good judgment faster, but these basics are the essential fallback we all go through and can be happy for their use in propelling us forward.
Yessss!! Fuck these people. They've killed enough.
Ayyyy I have a miner in Texas! A little bitty one haha