7 ms·

Separation of money and state is definitely a worthwhile goal in my opinion. Everything else is more questionable.

nwah1 4y ago
The state has a monopoly on the use of force. It can tax, expropriate, conscript, regulate, and otherwise redirect resources however it wants, and it can demand payments in any currency it chooses. The wishful thinking involved in trying to "separate" money and states is absurd. Even under a gold standard, the government can acquire resources from the public at will. The entire goal is nonsense. The root desire there is the urge to not have a government, which is just yet more wishful thinking.
- deebosong 4y ago
  Not the person you're responding to. But I concur. How will one separate money from state and then protect one's state-separated money without themselves becoming a "state" of sorts, that then is fused to their money? And then everyone becomes their own little island/state, that is fused to their money, and then you forge alliances and become allied island-states, and so on and so forth, until you become a nation of sorts? Like cmon now. Isn't that the inevitable progression? And if so, doesn't that mean these folks who insist upon separating state from money just want to become the ruling class? I dunno. That's just how it always comes across to me.
  - cellis 4y ago
    Centralization is inevitable. - https://subconscious.substack.com/p/centralization-is-inevitable https://subconscious.substack.com/p/centralization-is-inevit...
  - three_seagrass 4y ago
    Yep, power vacuums always have a way of being filled. The question is, do you want it to be controlled by rational actors seeking to exploit everyone else, or an organization that has potential for other (maybe even altruistic) motives?
- thwayunion 4y ago
  Back in the beginning, bitcoin was intensely attractive to people who were in the intersection of extreme libertarian ethics and cosmopolitan financial capitalism ethos. It's a fundamentally contradictory world view, of course. You cannot have cosmopolitan financial capitalism without very strong states propping up an extremely unnatural global order. But you can understand how middle-wealthy tech people ended up there. They were self-made, annoyed with taxes, and primarily held wealth that was generated without geographic ties. This is opposed to traditional middle-wealthy folks, whose revenue streams were historically closely tied to place and/or community. Now that the End Of History is over, the contradiction is laid bare, and the reaction has been a sort of ideological immune response triggering fever dreams that are increasingly absurd and desperate (metaverse, web3, NFTs).
- JamesianP 4y ago
  I would have assumed separating money and state simply means the state can no longer control money creation. So yes it would be similar to using gold as a currency. Just high tech. Though with all the hype I'm sure there was a lot of craziness imagining more beyond that.
  - yifanl 4y ago
    That seems like a non-feasible end-goal. If we assume there's any meaningful input involved with the creation of money (mining equipment or graphics cards), then centralization will happen around having the most of the input and securing that, which naturally implies a monopoly on force, which implies a state. If you allow for fiat money, then almost definitionally, there's a state that everybody agrees is empowered to create the money or else, why would they continue to ensure the value of money?
    - JamesianP 4y ago
      Gold mining purportedly does cause inflation in gold-backed currency. I guess bitcoin mining is the same, not familiar with that other than the annoying effect on hardware prices. Perhaps the argument is that this gets increasingly harder, as opposed to fiat money creation, which appears to be exponential growth. Plus manipulation of the currency has never been all that consistent, they are constantly trying new things and pushing boundaries. so any claims of future stability comes down solely to predicting how far some president or fed chairman might choose to go next along with how other countries react to that.
- pxmpxm 4y ago
  People pitching the state vs money argument are the same crypto nerds as per xkcd: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
  - louwrentius 4y ago
    Indeed, thank you.
- birdyrooster 4y ago
  These are the same people that want free software to workaround abusive corporate policy instead of first regulating corporations. We might actually even be served by a free software movement if employees and people were actually free and unconstrained by corporations that that keep them from ever participating. People like Stallman think a license.txt is going to solve this?
- killerstorm 4y ago
  People can move from one country to another. The majority of people on Earth live in countries which are considered corrupt & incompetent and have regular bank crashes. It would be a good thing if we remove control of money from corrupt governments.
  - louwrentius 4y ago
    As if that’s really working. Food is still paid in local currency and exchanges can be controlled by the government. It’s not worth boiling the oceans for. But even so, crypto was never really about the poor and unfortunate. Crypto is about pure greed. Money. Tax evasion. Don’t tell waffle stories about people in other countries please. It was never about them. Be at least honest.
    - zeroclip 4y ago
      Crypto is about a lot of things. A new asset class appears and people will assign different stories to it. Totally possible that blockchain tech is used for payment infra in future. Ethereum and PoS is no longer energy intensive.
squokko 4y ago
Then you have no state power to deal with misuse of money.
louwrentius 4y ago
You mean tax evasion. I said legal use cases. Please pay your dues to society.

The state has a monopoly on the use of force. It can tax, expropriate, conscript, regulate, and otherwise redirect resources however it wants, and it can demand payments in any currency it chooses. The wishful thinking involved in trying to "separate" money and states is absurd. Even under a gold standard, the government can acquire resources from the public at will. The entire goal is nonsense. The root desire there is the urge to not have a government, which is just yet more wishful thinking.

deebosong 4y ago
Not the person you're responding to. But I concur. How will one separate money from state and then protect one's state-separated money without themselves becoming a "state" of sorts, that then is fused to their money? And then everyone becomes their own little island/state, that is fused to their money, and then you forge alliances and become allied island-states, and so on and so forth, until you become a nation of sorts? Like cmon now. Isn't that the inevitable progression? And if so, doesn't that mean these folks who insist upon separating state from money just want to become the ruling class? I dunno. That's just how it always comes across to me.
- cellis 4y ago
  Centralization is inevitable. - https://subconscious.substack.com/p/centralization-is-inevitable https://subconscious.substack.com/p/centralization-is-inevit...
- three_seagrass 4y ago
  Yep, power vacuums always have a way of being filled. The question is, do you want it to be controlled by rational actors seeking to exploit everyone else, or an organization that has potential for other (maybe even altruistic) motives?
thwayunion 4y ago
Back in the beginning, bitcoin was intensely attractive to people who were in the intersection of extreme libertarian ethics and cosmopolitan financial capitalism ethos. It's a fundamentally contradictory world view, of course. You cannot have cosmopolitan financial capitalism without very strong states propping up an extremely unnatural global order. But you can understand how middle-wealthy tech people ended up there. They were self-made, annoyed with taxes, and primarily held wealth that was generated without geographic ties. This is opposed to traditional middle-wealthy folks, whose revenue streams were historically closely tied to place and/or community. Now that the End Of History is over, the contradiction is laid bare, and the reaction has been a sort of ideological immune response triggering fever dreams that are increasingly absurd and desperate (metaverse, web3, NFTs).
JamesianP 4y ago
I would have assumed separating money and state simply means the state can no longer control money creation. So yes it would be similar to using gold as a currency. Just high tech. Though with all the hype I'm sure there was a lot of craziness imagining more beyond that.
- yifanl 4y ago
  That seems like a non-feasible end-goal. If we assume there's any meaningful input involved with the creation of money (mining equipment or graphics cards), then centralization will happen around having the most of the input and securing that, which naturally implies a monopoly on force, which implies a state. If you allow for fiat money, then almost definitionally, there's a state that everybody agrees is empowered to create the money or else, why would they continue to ensure the value of money?
  - JamesianP 4y ago
    Gold mining purportedly does cause inflation in gold-backed currency. I guess bitcoin mining is the same, not familiar with that other than the annoying effect on hardware prices. Perhaps the argument is that this gets increasingly harder, as opposed to fiat money creation, which appears to be exponential growth. Plus manipulation of the currency has never been all that consistent, they are constantly trying new things and pushing boundaries. so any claims of future stability comes down solely to predicting how far some president or fed chairman might choose to go next along with how other countries react to that.
pxmpxm 4y ago
People pitching the state vs money argument are the same crypto nerds as per xkcd: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- louwrentius 4y ago
  Indeed, thank you.
birdyrooster 4y ago
These are the same people that want free software to workaround abusive corporate policy instead of first regulating corporations. We might actually even be served by a free software movement if employees and people were actually free and unconstrained by corporations that that keep them from ever participating. People like Stallman think a license.txt is going to solve this?
killerstorm 4y ago
People can move from one country to another. The majority of people on Earth live in countries which are considered corrupt & incompetent and have regular bank crashes. It would be a good thing if we remove control of money from corrupt governments.
- louwrentius 4y ago
  As if that’s really working. Food is still paid in local currency and exchanges can be controlled by the government. It’s not worth boiling the oceans for. But even so, crypto was never really about the poor and unfortunate. Crypto is about pure greed. Money. Tax evasion. Don’t tell waffle stories about people in other countries please. It was never about them. Be at least honest.
  - zeroclip 4y ago
    Crypto is about a lot of things. A new asset class appears and people will assign different stories to it. Totally possible that blockchain tech is used for payment infra in future. Ethereum and PoS is no longer energy intensive.

squokko 4y ago

Then you have no state power to deal with misuse of money.

louwrentius 4y ago

You mean tax evasion. I said legal use cases. Please pay your dues to society.