Saturday, April 26, 2014

Walter Block on Bitcoin, Seasteading and "Bleeding Heart" Libertarians

Walter Block recently conducted an AMA (Ask Me Anything) session on Reddit. Below is a transcript of the entire session.

Q: What's your opinion of the prospects for
seasteading? What strategy for libertarian societal change generally do you prefer? What's your opinion of agorism? Lastly, what do you think of bitcoin?!
A: I'm a fan of anything that promotes liberty. Seasteading, claiming parts of the ocean, promotes liberty, so I favor it. I'm a big tent kind of libertarian when it comes to societal change: academics, the Libertarian Party, the Free State Project, working with the Republican Party (a la Ron Paul), novels (Rand), folksongs. My own area of interest is in academics: teaching Austrian economics and libertarian political philosophy. I favor bitcoin more than present monetary arrangements, but less than gold.

Q: Thanks a lot for doing what you do. If it weren’t for a very few people like you I might still be a statist. You helped change my life. Can you please recommend one book on Austrian Economics, one book on Anarcho-Capitalism, and one book that you really love? Can you please tell a funny/cool story about hanging out with Rothbard? What is your simplest rebuttal to a social contract argument? (I get in this argument a lot)? What are some activism ideas I may not have thought of yet (not including Agorism)? I have a hard time enjoying reading Liberal philosophers (such as Locke, J.S. Mill, Burke) now that I am an Ancap. What do you think of these philosophers and their works? I remember reading somewhere about the Walter Block Defense, which states that it is okay play a role in government if you are actually attempting to destroy said government. Is there anywhere I can read more about this I’ve taken a great interest in existentialism. Opinions? How important is happiness?
A:
  1. Austrian: Man, Economy, State by Murray Rothbard, AnarchoCap: For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard, Love: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
  2. I got stomach cramps from laughing so much.
  3. I never signed any social contract, did you?
  4. ???
  5. Locke is great, except for his Lockean proviso. I like Mill's On Liberty, even though he is a utilitarian Burke is too conservative for me.
  6. Yes, I wrote about that. Here are my pubs on that subject: http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1972/1972_06-07.pdf
  7. Phooey.
  8. Very.

Q: Some people claim there are two types of anarcho-capitalist law: the polycentric law that David Friedman advocates for, and a monocentric, Natural Law that Rothbardians advocate for. I see this as incorrect. I see both Rothbardians and Friedman both as advocating for competing providers of law and competing schools of jurisprudence. I think the main difference is rhetorical. David Friedman focuses on consequential arguments, while Rothbard advocated directly for a libertarian society. What are your thoughts?
A: My thoughts on Rothbard versus David Friedman can be found here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/murray-n-rothbard/do-you-pass-the-rothbard-test/
I think David has made many and important contributions to libertarianism. but I'm a Rothbardian on this issue, and on virtually all issues.

Q: Do you think the relative unpopularity of economic liberty (laissez faire) as a policy is due to people's lack of knowledge or some predilection in favor of tangible, solid 'plans' over the unpredictability of freedom? Or neither or some mix of both?
I mean I see such broad support for raising minimum wage, for universal healthcare, for increasing financial regulation. Most people don't seem to have honestly considered the implications of those policies beyond the plan as its presented. And if you're against these sort of things, one accusation is that you have no plan to replace their proposal, ergo we can't leave these things to chance and must choose SOME plan, even if its a horrible, inefficient and wasteful one. It frustrates me that people think the absence of government action is chaos.
As a followup, how do you convince people to put their faith in free markets and free people without promising some specific plan or specific outcome? Saying "the free market will fix it" doesn't seem satisfying to most people.
A: In my view, econ liberty is unpopular due to biology. We are hard-wired to be against it. I'm a supporter of using socio-biology to explain why we libertarians have such a hard time convincing people of the merits of economic freedom. When we were in the caves or trees a zillion years ago, there was no biological advantage in favoring liberty. But there was an advantage to being helpful, obedient. That's why all too many people are like that. I think most libertarians have some sort of genetic mutation that allows us to be open to this sort of thing.

Q: Do you believe there will be a dollar collapse in the coming years, like Jeff Berwick of Anarchast and Dollar Vigilantee believes?
A: it depends upon what our esteemed leaders do. if they adopt Austro libertarian principles, prosperity. otherwise, economic disasters.

Q: Dr. Block, this is John (we just got off the phone, I helped organize this and get you started). Thanks so much for doing this AMA and we hope to maybe have you again. My question is: who could you see yourself voting for in the upcoming 2016 presidential election? Or do you choose not to vote at all? This will be the first election I am able to vote in, so it would be interesting to know who you are thinking of. Thanks!
A: If Ron Paul were running, I'd vote for him in a flash. Hey, he's still a young, vigorous guy! Rand Paul isn't as good a libertarian as his dad, but if he were running against Hilary, that too would be a no-brainer. Hey, I supported my man Obama against crazy McCain in 2008, and again in 2012 against crazy Romney. I did so mainly on foreign policy issues. My fear was that McCain would nuke Russia, and Romney would nuke China. At least Obama didn't get the US into Syria, and hasn't bombed Russia yet. I recommend this blog of mine in this regard: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/walter-block-on-the-bundy-ranch-how-would-the-american-people-feel-about-putin-if/

Q: If a truly libertarian society ever came about, how long do you think it would take until we are there? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Or possibly never? And what do you think is the most realistic way this could happen: the political process, collapse of the nation state, agorism, seasteading, crypto-anarchy? Thanks for your time Dr. Block!
A: As I said before, the reason we keep pushing the libertarian rock of Sisyphus (pardon my poor spelling) up the mountain only to see it come crashing down again, it due to biological hard-wiring. If we don't blow ourselves up by then, maybe we'll achieve liberty in 500 years. Is that long enough for biological change? I'm not sure. This sounds horrid. But, we libertarians can have FUN promoting liberty, even though we don't achieve it in our lifetimes. I can't imagine doing anything else.

Q: Where do you see the American economy going in the next 10 years?
A: It depends upon what our ruling class does. If they continue with debts, inflation, I see the continuation of the Austrian business cycle. If Ron Paul or Rand Paul win in 2016, and they get rid of the Fed, get rid of econ regulations, radically reduce taxes, bring the troops home, legalize drugs, etc., I foresee great prosperity.

Q: Have you invested any of your fiat currency into bitcoin?(or any other alt coins)
A: Someone once purchased my book Defending II with a bitcoin, so I think I still have one. but, I'm so inept at these sort of things I don't know if this is true, nor how many bitcoins he paid me.

Q: I have a question: what do you think of some of these libertarians that are criticizing Ron Paul and the Ron Paul Institute for being too soft on Putin and his actions regarding Crimea? Alexander McCobin of Students for Liberty (SFL) did this and many responded to him. And what do you think of this whole "thick" libertarian thing, and the protest of some of these people that in the end we are all "thick"?
A: I'm a Ron Paulian. McCobin has made important contributions to libertarianism, but he is a war-mongering imperialist. that is, he's no libertarian at all. Libertarianism is like a three legged stool: economic liberty, personal liberty, plus a non interventionist foreign policy. McCobin certainly fails on the third necessary condition. Thick libertarianism is an attempt on the part of some people to hijack correct Rothbardian libertarianism, which is based, solely, on the non aggression principle (NAP) and property rights based on homesteading. Why don't they come of with an entirely different name for their theories? Maybe, Bleeding Heartism? What left wing thick libertarians try to do is combine libertarianism with their pet peeves. Ditto for right wing thick libertarians. Here is my rejection of both of them:http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_8.pdf[1] ;http://141.164.133.3/exchange/walterblock/Inbox/JLS%20article.EML/1_multipart_xF8FF_2_block%20libertarianism%20is%20unique%20one.pdf/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/block%20libertarianism%20is%20unique%20one.pdf?attach=1[2]http://mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdf[3] http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdf[4]
Look it, cancer research is a "good" thing. I certainly favor it. Suppose I said that true or thick libertarianism combines the NAP, homesteading and cancer research. And then added love for Mozart, chess and handball, other things I like. I would rightly be accused of attempting to hijack libertarianism in favor of my idiosyncrasies. I'd say, shame on me for trying to pervert libertarianism.

Q: I see that in another comment you approve of Locke, but not his provisos. Can you elaborate on why? I'd specifically like to know your thoughts on his Labor Theory of Property. Thanks.
A: I agree with Locke's labor theory of property. I disagree with his proviso. His proviso goes something like this: his homesteading, his labor theory of property (you get to own something by mixing your labor with it) only holds true if there is enough unclaimed land, and of as good quality, still available. if there is not, then Locke withdraws his homesteading theory. In my view, the Lockean homesteading theory should apply whether or not there is unclaimed land of as good quality. my motto is, if it moves, privatize it, if it doesn't move, privatize it; since everything either moves or doesn't move, privatize everything. but, the only way to privatize everything is to get rid of that horrid proviso.

Q: Thanks for your time today:
  1. Whats your view on bitcoin as it relates to intellectual property? For instance, if I manage to "copy" someones bitcoin information, has a theft actually occurred (since the other person still maintains their copy)?
  2. Also in regards to intellectual property, would it be acceptable if I changed my name to Walter Block and then opened a new mexican restaurant that I called McDonalds? In other words, shouldn't a libertarian society support IP rights for reputation purposes alone?
A: I'm a follower of Stephan Kinsella when it comes to IP: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf[1]
I think Stephan hits the nail on the head on IP.

Q: You say that inflation is theft.
As a libertarian, I am wondering how inflation is theft if nobody has a property right in the value of a resource or good. If you get $100, and it loses 25% of it's value, what has been stolen if you still have your $100. How is a decrease in currency value 'theft'? Why is a decrease in value only theft when it's currency, but not theft for any other good or resource? Is there a universalizable right to the value of a good or resource?
A: I agree. We can only own things themselves, not their value: http://www.mises.org/etexts/propertyexploitation.pdf[1] 
And, if inflation (rising prices) comes about because new gold discoveries outstrip increasing productivity elsewhere in the economy, then fine. But when people counterfeit money (e.g., the fed, fractional reserve banking), that amounts to theft. But, not because the value of money owned by the rest of us decreases.

Q: Do you think bitcoin has a value other than being a medium of exchange?
Even if it has a value, isn't there still no limit of supply for digital currencies with similar or even better properties?
Considering the answer to the second question is no, is it a sufficient reason to not advocate bitcoin?
A: Any medium of exchange can also serve as a store of value. an economist was asked: "How is your wife?" He responded: "Compared to what?" This joke indicates the importance of comparing bitcoin to what? To the gold standard? Then bitcoin looks pathetic. To present fiat currency? then bitcoin looks good.

(Thanks to John Trainum, who arranged the session and provided the transcript.-RW)

11 comments:

  1. If fractional reserve banking is theft, then Ron Paul is stealing money by accepting credit cards. You can use a Visa or a Mastercard to enroll in his home schooling curriculum.

    https://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com/public/864.cfm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol. Using and accepting fiat currency is now theft?

      Ron Paul isn't running a bank claiming that your deposit is 100% on demand while only having 10% of the balance on demand you moron.

      Issuing new money from thin air is the theft you jackass. At least try to troll with somewhat coherent bullshit.

      You'd think that since you're unemployed you would have time to brush up on the basics.

      Delete
    2. Take a break, troll. Trying leaving your parent's basement and taking a shower. Get out of that night shirt you've been sitting in and put on some clean clothes.

      Delete
    3. "Issuing new money from thin air is the theft you jackass."

      What is being stolen from you by someone else's production? Creating money 'out of thin air' (useless and unnecessary metaphor) isn't theft.

      Delete
    4. Just read your post, fraud is a better choice of word than theft

      Delete
  2. Interesting: "I think most libertarians have some sort of genetic mutation that allows us to be open to this sort of thing."

    This implies a bad gene problem in other humans. I think that Dr. Block is on the right track, even if he could have expressed it in a way less easy to quote out of context for the sake of mockery.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I asked Walter Block this question:

    "As a libertarian, I am wondering how inflation is theft if nobody has a property right in the value of a resource or good. If you get $100, and it loses 25% of it's value, what has been stolen if you still have your $100. How is a decrease in currency value 'theft'? Why is a decrease in value only theft when it's currency, but not theft for any other good or resource? Is there a universalizable right to the value of a good or resource?"

    He responded with:

    "I agree. We can only own things themselves, not their value."

    This is correct. It is wrong to say what many libertarians do, that inflation is theft because the Fed is stealing the value of your money.


    He continues,

    "And, if inflation (rising prices) comes about because new gold discoveries outstrip increasing productivity elsewhere in the economy, then fine. But when people counterfeit money (e.g., the fed, fractional reserve banking), that amounts to theft. But, not because the value of money owned by the rest of us decreases"

    Why is a currency limited to gold? Can people not use anything they chose to as a medium of exchange?

    He says it is theft because it is counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is no different than fraud, it means one party in an exchange led the other to believe a good they were trading for was something other than what it actually was.

    How is the Fed 'counterfeiting'? We all know what the currency is, no one is being misled, there's no fraud. Is it even possible for someone to counterfeit their own product? For example, could nike make counterfeit nikes? I don't see how they could.

    Further, how does counterfeiting something amount to theft?

    I can counterfeit a pair of nikes for personal use without ever stealing anything from anyone, no theft has occured from my counterfeiting. It's only theft if i attempt to trade them with someone else while misleading them which is just fraud. But even that isn't happening by the Fed, we know exactly what the currency is and aren't led to believe it is something other than what it actually is.

    Counterfeit is just a term for IP. Everyone has the right to counterfeit, or copy designs, they just don't have the right to use fraud while trading.


    So, why did he use the word counterfeit when there's nothing criminal about counterfeiting? Counterfeiting itself is never the crime, it is the fraud that is the crime.

    I don't see how it is counterfeit, fraud, or theft.

    Someone explain, what am I missing. There are a lot of good arguments against the fed and government monopoly on a currency, but imprecise use of terms like fraud, counterfeit, and theft aren't good arguments and lead to really faulty thinking in this area and other areas of libertarian property rights theory...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree; I love Walter Block, but I do think he punted on this one. Even if we accept the postulate that counterfeiting is de facto wrong, that still doesn't establish that it is *theft.* There's a missing bit of argumentation in there.

      Delete
    2. It's not that devaluing the currency through counterfeiting that is the problem with fiat currency.
      The problem is the legal tender laws that force people to obtain federal reserve notes in order to pay taxes. Google legal tender laws

      Delete
    3. "The problem is the legal tender laws that force people to obtain federal reserve notes in order to pay taxes."

      I agree. But that isn't theft, counterfeiting, or fraud.

      Delete
  4. When you receive currency as compensation for labor or capital investment an exchange occurs at a set value. When a third party acts to change that set value, not based on an input change to the production equation but for their own gains, the initial contractual exchange is altered. The crime is not that an entity is able to manipulate their own product (in this case dollar Value in relation to labor) but rather the compulsion associated with its use. Competition is the answer to currency manipulation.

    ReplyDelete