1. is false, 2. is usefully correct, 3. is a great example of the socialist calculation problem

From its inception, Progressivism has been about finding government solutions to social problems (real or imagined). Whether or not we share that perspective, it is clearly at odds with Bitcoin. Progressivism is far more aligned with CBDC's.

Russel's paradox updated to modern times.

Voting with Their Feet: The Lure of Migration

https://mises.org/wire/voting-their-feet-lure-migration

"People migrate for many reasons, including moving to a better economy and escaping political persecution. But one thing is certain: people are going to vote with their feet."

Easy Money Is a Much Bigger Economic Problem than Debt

https://mises.org/wire/easy-money-much-bigger-economic-problem-debt

"While many economists claim that high overall debt levels can lead to economic recessions, irresponsible government spending and money expansion are the real culprits."

It's hard to be persistently scared for decades on end. You have to hype up your hysterias nearer to when you need people to be afraid.

If so, that's clearly a failure of DEI advocates to communicate their goals and articulate problems without just calling people names.

They're going to try option 2, first.

When that fails, and the economy's destroyed, they'll do option 1.

That's a completely fair position. I just wanted to drive home that a lot of ink has been spilled on this question and I probably couldn't do it justice in an exchange of notes.

Bob Murphy is one of my favorite thinkers. Here's a pretty short introduction that he wrote a while ago: https://mises.org/library/possibility-private-law

Btw, I hear you on the "Real _____ has never been tried." point. The distinction I would make is between "market" economies and "capitalist" societies. There are market economies (which I would identify by whether prices are dictated or emergent) where the state still ultimately claims ownership over everything, but decisions are generally made by private citizens, rather than a state planner. Capitalist vs socialist is about ownership, whereas market vs planned is about decision making.

We'll see if it scales. So far, we're benefitting from strong selection bias.

Have hope! We'll crack this nut someday.

Firstly, I don't think any capitalist society exists and I don't think that should be very controversial if we're taking the meaning of terms seriously.

Secondly, you're right about there being different views of ownership and I would consider a society to be capitalist if the only government actions were either voluntary or seeking to resolve property claims between private citizens.

Thirdly, an entity that settles ownership claims would have to get its resources from consenting people in a capitalist society (or produce them from natural resources).

Again, I'm talking about the meaning of terms. Viability of systems is a different subject. If you want a long ass reading list for how a capitalist society could work, I can provide that.

Yes, to all of those. The measurable yardstick is the state claiming the ultimate right of decision making about how property is used.

Remember that socialism is about ownership and ownership means final say in usage. It's not about how extreme or seemingly innocuous the state's ownership claims are.

I suppose in theory there could be a truly mixed economy, but there would have to be certain property rights that the state doesn't ultimately claim. That would mean that even if the entire state apparatus were arrayed against a property owner, the property owner would still get their way.

That's a strawman. Leftists don't mind showing their ID to vote. They just think black people are too stupid and lazy to figure out how to get an ID and they don't want them to be disenfranchised.

You sound like a deranged conspiracy theorist. Government invented roads and no private actor has ever made one.

I just think it's a misnomer. They're just socialist economies that allow people different freedoms, but none of them fundamentally respect private property rights.

Another way to put it is that socialist governments claim the ultimate right to use of all property. A capitalist "government" would respect the individual's ultimate right to decide how their property is used.

It's the central tragedy of this reality.

If we ever figure out how to make those damn roads, we won't have to put up with stuff like this anymore.

He's borrowing from Mises, who said a functioning stock market is a useful way to sort mixed economies into "capitalist" and "socialist".

Personally, I agree with Hoppe that all "mixed" economies are just versions of socialism. A capitalist society, by definition, respects private property rights and voluntary interactions between consenting adults.

I have found adding money to Fold to be more annoying than I expected it to be.