Let's Talk ETC! #87 - Stephan Kinsella, JD, LLM - Libertarianism, Anarcho-Capitalism & Blockchains

hello everyone and welcome to another edition of let's talk a PC I have a previous guest with me stephan kinsella is a libertarian writer and patent attorney and last time he discussed did he discuss anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism and i that was one of my most listened to shows i thought i'd have him back to touch a little bit again upon that and also discuss some legal issues involving blockchain technology so welcome Stefan thank you very much Christian yes so why don't you give people a little bit a quick introduction to your ear your background your education and some of your accomplishments sure I am a 53 year old patent attorney in Houston Texas I'm from Louisiana and I've been with large law firms and representing high-tech firms for the last 25 plus years that's what I do for a living but I've also been heavily involved on the other side of my sort of a vocational side with Austrian economics and libertarian theory and the Mises Institute and groups like that for the last 25 plus years so I sort of have my foot into you know two ponds I'm a practicing IP lawyer but I'm also a libertarian sort of theorist where I write I speak and I really get into the nitty-gritty of property rights and things like that so I guess we could call yourself an activist well that's that's another interesting discussion I mean there are different types of activists there's political activists people that try to get people out to vote and join the libertarian party you know there's the Iran style of what they call intellectual activists right I don't know if I would call myself an activist I am engaged I try to understand and I am interested in speaking with people and trying to learn from them and impart ideas to them I've learned I don't know if I would call it activism but I guess it's a type of involvement or engagement of a certain type sure okay now last time as I said that was one of the most popular shows where you discuss anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism so there seems to be a interest in those topics so can you quickly now people can obviously watch the show to get more elaboration but can you just quickly touch upon what those two terms mean well there's there's sort of an old joke and most libertarian jokes are about as good as dad jokes but there's an old joke like what's the difference between a monarchist and an anarchist and the men are kissed is someone who believes in minimum the minimal state like what we call the Nightwatchman state or a radically mineral state like you believe in government but it's got to be very small and an anarchist who believes in no government so the joke is what's the difference between Americus and anarchist and the answer is about six months and and what that means is that the type of person like in college or at a young age who gets obsessed with or interested in these issues usually economics the free-market economics personal liberty issues philosophy Iran maybe you know Rampal activism freedom these kinds of things they tend to come from some background which is pro state in one form or the other right there they're a lefty there all righty there are Democrats or conservative or progressive or whatever and they start to see the logic of economics helps them peel back some of the illusions that they held right like you can't have you know just a simple-minded thing like oh why doesn't the government just print more money and make everyone rich you know which a nine year old might think a child right right or a union worker today or a Democrat voter today but what do you understand a little bit about supply and demand and the role of money and economics you understand that these things are impossible you start realizing that old well first system hurt the black family oh there's no free lunch yes and and and and all these things where people say that you know the government got us out of depression with the war or the government is trying to fight inflation you start seeing the fallacies and all these things because the government causes inflation by expanding the money supply by a central bank right so the whole thing is ridiculous so if you get a little bit of economic literacy and you have a decent heart like you want the best for yourself and your fellow people then you basically have to become some form of libertarian because you basically want the government to stay out of interfering with things that destroy wealth and that harm people's liberties and just do the the necessary things that we all kind of agree with should be done and you can disagree with the way it should be done but you know we not many people disagree that we should have some kind of structure or system or laws or rules right that protects people's people's rights their bodies and their things this is property rights and so anarcho-capitalism is the outgrowth of this if you have a radical principle consistent application of economics and just good and right principles to the way humans interact you will end up concluding that the government is a criminal organization and so you will basically conclude that because we're all gates theft and murder and rape and trespass and yet as Basquiat who is a great eighteenth century or in the eighteen hundreds 17th century French theorist economic journalist you know he explained that it's all plunder like so when the when the government takes from you they give it to someone else they have to take it from you nothing is for free right now I do have lki this is my best attempt at an intelligent question about anarcho-capitalism and I'm not an expert at it but last time you were opening my eyes to all these things that the private sector could do like possibly the military the post office even courts I remember you mentioned that a legal adjudication system and I was talking with my colleague of mine who's an econ professor and so here here okay here's here's the concern I have about that horse it might not be all pot all rosy so let's say if we had a white a clean slate we're on an island we decided to implement anarcho-capitalism and instead of having a government we had we had basically had privatized all those things you talked about eventually and you have to have some kind of rules and those rules would end up leading to some form of coercion all right so so you would still have coercion even in anarcho-capitalist ik system to some of the group do you see what I'm saying yes because even even something like a homeowners association we all agree to keep our guards clean in order to have a nice place with high property values etc etc but you see what I mean no matter every any time you start setting up rules and people agree to things if people don't follow the rules they have to be kicked out so now you have coercion and and a powerful some somewhat powerful central authority so you can my point is you can't get away from that if you have a if you have privatized everything what you what you didn't like about the government now you have privatized entities that you're not going to like that are different so how would you have any thoughts on that yeah so that sort of highlights and this is a big big conversation by the way so but that highlights the difference between what we call left libertarians and I'm reluctant to say right libertarians now because the alt right and the right has corrupted a lot of things but let me there there's a there's a theorist called Hans Hermann hapa who's like the descendant he's like a student of Roth bird who was a student of Mises and his best breakdown of the left-right divide is that but you know because the standard libertarian answer is that we're not left or right we're just libertarian we're in favor of property rights and freedom and we're not left or right and left and right are both basically socialistic for my point of view but in different ways and that we are you trying to make the point that coercion is not something that should be considered when deciding if something is libertarian or not no so I'm I'm getting to that but as for coercion itself libertarians are not against so libertarians are opposed to unconsented to transactions you can put it that way sometime people offshoots of libertarians call themselves voluntary isolation the word voluntary I think that's a semantic mistake because voluntary is not quite right but I know they're getting at like so for example if I coerce you into doing something signing a document saying you're guilty it was voluntary like you volunteered to do it but you did it under duress yeah so the proper of libertarian criteria would be was a consensual and consent has to mean and tourists consent now coercion this is giving in semantics but violence forced coercion all these words are used willy-nilly and interchangeably but we have to realize that what we libertarians or we're not opposed to coercion violence or force we're opposed to the initiation of violence coercion or force that's why I Rand and the other early libertarians emphasized aggression as the thing the real thing aggression is the institutionalized or individualized initiation of force right so we're not so coercion I mean if you think about coercion to coerce Allah means to threaten them with something to make them do something but if you let me just imagine you're on the farm some guys invade your farm and they've attacked your family and you have to capture these guys and you have to coerce them to get them to leave or to reveal where your kidnap daughter is or whatever okay cool the coercion is just the threat of force to make someone do something to compel someone to do something that is just like a gun like a gun is neither evil nor good you can use a gun for good or evil I can I can harm you with it or I can defend myself with it right it's the same thing with coercion or with violence or with force so to be precise and persnickety as a libertarian were not against coercion coercion just means using force to compel someone to do something sometimes it's justified sometimes it's not okay yes yes so all of these it's a matter of degree how much libertarians allow some property or another that's why I really like your term men are kissed I think it really gets to the what what seems to be the heart of libertarianism which is the minimum amount of coercion the minimum amount of government etc etcetera well that is that a would you agree with that I mean I think that's close so yes I would agree with that yeah you you want to minimize the amount of government but I'm not I'm in Arcis time and reduce because I think menarche ism is actually logically incompatible impossible it's of course a better goal than what we have now right democratic rule or whatever but menarchy is inherently unstable because once you set in motion a state that has the power to compel compliance right either by taxes or by jurisdiction or by something like that then they will have this monopoly power which cannot be rationally used in other words they will they will necessarily abuse it there's no rational way that the government can be just so the slippery slope argument is I think what one of the points you're making if you if you allow the government you know the foot in the door that the power would keep expanding yeah and it's not just a slippery slope is the it's the idea that that Mises one of the fundamental Austrian economists of the early 1900's he pointed out that socialism cannot work efficiently in other words a essentially planned government authority cannot rationally know what to do with the resources at its disposal so if you have a committee that just says you do this you build a railway here you do a hotel here you do a grant works here they don't know what they're doing because they're just throwing things around the only way you can do that rationally is in accordance with the price signal system which means you have to have capitalism right so the the point is that the the government the central planning of planning authority cannot know okay so yeah yeah I agree with what you said about price signals and and that of course gets into how a free market work which works which is all interesting to me so before we end this little banter about anarcho-capitalism and get into the legal issues of blockchain tech i wanted to hear your thoughts what do you think about the rise of socialism that seems to be happy' happening in america right now that to me seems was seems totally unexpected it seems like all those arguments for socialism and then so if should have been so effective that this shouldn't be happening well okay so I won't be a typical guest because I will have my own opinions and they are this socialism is not what is conventionally described right I mean socialism is the institutionalized interference with private property claims okay okay and so people think of socialism is Russia right simply right right Oh North Korea but socialism is just the creeping invasion of our private property rights not necessarily the government in creeping up encroaching on other aspects of our lives is that the point you're making well it is I mean so if you have a holistic view like if you're a libertarian you don't actually see a difference between personal rights and economic rights economic liberties and personal liberties so freedom of the press freedom of Commerce from the libertarian they're all combined and they're all unified you call it me right so to take a crude example if a government has control of the means of communications like the media then there's no freedom of the press right or on the contrary wise if there's a private se newspaper and they have a printing press if they can't own their property they can't print what they want to print so private property and civil liberties they go together economic liberties and civil liberties go together you can't separate the two and that's what libertarians believe we believe that they go together you should have a freedom across the board in lots of different areas to make a priest productive society in it's not just freedom it's the idea that people look Society exists because we look we have evolved from primitive mammals and other animals and we can get along we can have trade and commerce and society among each other and it's better if the the social rules respect our trades with each other with each other right so that that's basically the idea and so the idea is that we all benefit from commerce and inter intercourse with each other right and so you just can't have the government come in with Lee nilly and just say all of a sudden oh I'm going to take this from you and give it to him or say you can't do this because of that it's not fair that throws a monkey wrench in the works that makes everyone more poor but ya know I agree and I just wish I just wish we could convince more people of that and give Pete raise the bar on everybody's economic understanding but I guess that's another topic for another day how to get people to learn more about these issues but yes for people that are listening anarcho-capitalism libertarianism meeseeks right these are all you can search for these terms if you want to find out more but yes very interesting topics so let's uh switch gears now if you don't mind and let's talk about some legal issues that people think about and struggle with with blockchain technology and so a lot of people are excited and this is related to what we were just talking about so blockchain technology in my impression seems to me that it's helping to create a more libertarian world and so that's that because of that you can imagine some of the thorny issues that come up block chains can protect our privacy they can thicken that they can allow us to disseminate information if nobody else can stop us so why don't we go down through some concerns people have regarding all of that so for example privacy so if if blockchain technology makes world where privacy is we have really strong privacy the governments aren't going to like that and they're gonna say well you know in the name of national security in the name this or that we have to decrease we have eliminate privacy have back doors or something so it do you steal are you Steve still believe that privacy is an inherent good and that we should strengthen privacy or do you see any other science arguments well I think that the the should traditional ways of this is described is that privacy is a right right like we have fourth to memorize fit to memorize or whatever right and you know I personally think that there's something called prophylactic measures I mean we know we know what this is from you know condoms and things like this like you try to stop something from happening ahead of time right okay so as a radical libertarian I don't agree with the Constitution because it it basically tries to validate the government but in this attempt to validate the government is it it says limits on what the government can do right right and so the government can only do what it's able to do and so you have these let's take for example the right to double jeopardy the other right to not being criminate all right you and I both know that there are people that have committed crimes that are horrible and that should be punished maybe right but the government cannot get to because of certain technical procedural difficulties pray you can't make them testify against themselves for example you can't have double jeopardy so I view these things as as limits against what the state can do and because I realized that there are criminals who are dangerous but and the government is even more dangerous as a criminal so the government's so here's what the government says the government says we will monopolize everything we will assume the right to tax you and to appoint people will go out and we will stop the bad guys okay but when they do that first thing when they monopolize things they attacked you they are already doing what the bad guys are accused of doing they're already stealing from us okay fine so if they go out and stop the bad guys that's fine but of course they're always corrupt they're always inefficient it's not a free market so so you're so the bottom line is you're comfortable with the right to privacy and there anything that people do to abuse the right to privacy doesn't diminish your belief in that inalienable right is that correct so I don't think there's a right to privacy per se in natural law but I would say that there are lots of rights that are not in in natural law like the right to a presumption of innocence like for example okay which is embodied in the Fifth Amendment so the way I look at it is that we have a dangerous government in charge and we want to put limits on what they can do because they're very dangerous so one limit for example is the presumption of innocence in the Fifth Amendment for example yeah no I don't think that's a natural right because I think if you actually kill someone or hurt someone you actually deserve to be punished but the question is what is the power of the government does the government have the right and the power to do x y&z and because we fear the government more than the occasional criminal we want to put institutional limits on the government right right so I think that the the rights specified in the in the bill of rights or an attempt to limit what the government can do yes now it's an interesting I'm not a lawyer like you are my understanding is the Constitution doesn't enumerate any right to privacy it's not in the Bill of Rights so as blockchain technology and other technologies give us stronger privacy protections I wonder if it's on a weak legal footing if people try to challenge it you see what I'm saying because it's not in the bill of rights is that yeah absolutely so yeah so the Supreme Court is is basically positivist and they go along with the government's view of things right so they will bow down on occasion if you can show them some glowing signposts in the Constitution that says that they can't do a B and C and so some of these liberal minded justices have in Roe versus Wade etc they focused on the Fourth Amendment and they said okay there's a right of privacy so we can use that to say the government is limited the federal government is limited and what it can do and then they say okay the states are limited to because of the federal government is superior to the states so if we hate we if we can't do it the states can't do it either right so this this is the process and we have to watch it from the outside but we can't trust these guys because none of them are really interested in Liberty in a systematic way okay I mean they all believe in the superiority of the federal government I mean even these guys that all the Liberals Heil is like civil rights leaders they don't disagree with conscription drafting people for war or taxation or jail for crimes so they're basically all fascists I mean to be honest so they can say a B and C but they're not really serious about it until the rubber hits the road okay so so then privacy and we may or may not be something that's going to be controversial and debated and their people might it might be something that enters the public discussion more and more as blockchain technologies protect our privacy better and better you did mention taxes so that brings up another issue that comes up with blockchain technology and as it makes it easier to hide our assets it's basically like a digital cache when you use the blockchain token to buy things so I can imagine in the future blockchain technology making tax evasion you know easy for the common man to do so you could conceivably have a situation where you have widespread tax evasion and at that point the government's would either have to eliminate the way they then I have to change the way they collect taxes or abolish who can't access altogether maybe have some other kind of tax but I wondered what you what were your thoughts on that what happens what wouldn't we live in a world where it's so easy to hide assets is that something that we should be concerned about or what well okay so it's complicated I think that the government our system right claims to have control over everything and the the fact is that we can do copyright piracy we can copy things I'm not concerned about the state not being able to extract his tax rents okay I mean the government is trying to to to tax people and I think that they will be increasingly unable to do that because of technology now the question is is that a good thing or not right so yeah so I guess as as someone has a libertarian I could see then why you wouldn't be concerned if it it's more difficult for the IRS to collect taxes okay now you brought up the idea of copyrights so why don't we go to that topic so not only will it be harder to enforce tax rules it'll be harder to enforce copyright and patent law with upcoming technologies existing technologies right now that are maturing blockchain technology so is that something we should be concerned about well it depends on your perspective I guess I mean if you want to perpetuate the existing government monopoly you should be concerned because I do think that internet technology blockchain these things will undermine the ability of the government to enforce its monopoly but I think that's a good thing so I'm not concerned about it but some people are okay I mean look think about it this way most people have their wealth in different things right most people don't have their wealth in cash right it's in stocks 401 k's real estate loans real estate whatever so if things shift and fiat currency our currency becomes lesser we don't care that's the point they care we don't care so I personally think that our patent system and copyright system is too overreaching and should be drastically reformed I don't know if you share that view if you're a patent lawyer so if if the patent and copyright system was we that even though you're a patent lawyer that you wouldn't have a problem with that well so I think that weakening the patent system does no good because it's just like a slight change just like changing the marginal tax rates from twenty one percent to twenty point two percent so you think it should be abolished I think the patent system should be abolished and the less is abolished it won't do any good because yeah the patent system is like totally horrible it infringing on innovation and creativity okay well that certainly means something coming from a patent attorney such as yourself you know you know the issues involved and so you know so that you don't think it would harm the economy I'm just playing devil's advocate here if if we didn't have copyright so if we didn't have patents well first of all I don't think the point of the of a legal system is to maximize innovation the point is to protect property rights right okay so the this entire thing about oh well would your change in the law reduce or increase innovation is that good I mean I don't think I don't think that I mean when did this become the thing that the entire point of law and justice and rice is to increase innovation well I think literally in the in the Constitution I think the purpose of copyright was to promote how do they decided they say promote the useful arts science and the useful arts I don't know the exact words but so that that's the stated purpose of copyright now people today they say that copyright law today isn't promoting science and the useful arts in fact it's warts creativity and creative works because it prevents people from doing remixes derivative works and so it goes against what the Constitution says it's the purpose of copyright and there's so similar arguments I think are made with for patents as well that's true but I wonder why the Constitution is held up as some kind of standard I mean it's not it's not sacred it's what you're saying it's not sacred it was wrong I mean it basically made this mistake it should not have authorized Congress to have copyright and patent law so and that's not the point of law the point of law is to do justice a set of a legal system that recognizes property rights when there's a dispute over a resource we we have a system set up to say who has the better claim to this resource but it's been corrupted to do all kinds of manner of things right right and so encouraging innovation was never the point of property rights okay innovation is the result of people having secure property rights in the first place so you look at the American Constitution and you you look it from your your sophisticated eyes knowing what you know about economics and property political theory and you you see you see a lot of good things in it but you see barnacles that you would remove in a perfect world like the copyright state well let me go a little more radical okay cuz I'm an American like you I think I assume yes but I don't I don't worship the American Constitution it's some kind of thing that we should admire or hold up as something worthy of value let me explain why our Constitution means they constitute to make up right in other words the purpose of the Constitution okay we just go back for a second we had 13 separate states in 1785 whenever we won the Revolutionary War so in 13 countries in America all independent all sovereign states all coming all based all fairly liberal whatever except for slavery okay admit that whatever but the point is they formed a constitution to cost think about the word to constitute to make up to create they created a government and all these Americans go with propaganda that oh it protects our liberties but the purpose of the Constitution was not to protect our liberties it was to set up a new government right to constitute that government to give it limit limit the government wrong wrong okay no there was no there was no government before there was thirteen states they each had their own governments and they these 313 states came together they formed a new government in the middle of everything which became the central government which is the most powerful government today in the history of the earth so they came up and they crafted a proposition which allowed a new government to form they constitute they made the government and all these stupid liberty' mericans think that the Constitution its purpose was to protect their rights it was not it was to start a new government okay we have to realize this it was a coup 1787 the Articles of Confederation were overridden and a new government was formed as a result of the Constitutional Convention okay has nothing to do with Liberty we used when you say that the Constitution doesn't protect our Liberty are you making the point that because we have inalienable rights that we don't need somebody to give us okay you're not that's not what you're saying no I'm saying that the purpose of the Constitution was to constitute a new government it was to validate and legitimize a new government that would arise a central government the federal government of the United States okay that was the purpose of the federal government yes there were some limits put in there so so imagine you have 13 fairly limited common-law States Massachusetts Virginia whatever and they got together and they formed a compact or a treaty to form a new Hydra like European Union like type state okay emerged out of nowhere that he gave some limited powers but only very limited because they were very afraid of what they would do these powers right and they they put severe limits on paper on what this new government could do now if you characterize that action as protecting human rights you're an idiot because you had 13 states already governing the affairs of the people and they formed a new government and they were afraid of what it would do and they put limits on it but the purpose of that government was not to protect the rights of the citizens the purpose was to form a new central unit that could do things that the states couldn't do together and yes they put some limits on it they thought but the limits fail fell away and didn't work my point is that we've got to drop this nostalgia over the founding fathers and the original foundation of the American Union has some kind of libertarian experiment it was not it was basically a constitutional coup that created a new central government which has become by the way the most powerful state in all of America world history okay yeah I I think I think I know what would be great for libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism if you guys could do the American something similar to the American experiment if there was an island right or when maybe when the only must takes us to Mars if you had a blank slate and you could try the kind of government that you want right then you could prove look look if it thrived and people would look at it and say okay maybe we should copy that there's a lot of Merit there yeah so that that seems to be the way to go that's that's kind of what America did it through this work but he had it but but it didn't so that is the idealistic view that's the minoccurs view that's the American view and over the years I will tell you something as a personal libertarian I've been basically disgusted by the repeated attempt to buy the Praetorians to equate libertarianism to the American Founding Fathers generation I mean libertarianism is universalism is not Americanism we've got to get we got to give this up and if America was some kind of libertarian paradigm okay maybe we would go for that but it was not we had slavery we had women didn't have rights I mean we had serfs we had horrible laws we had religious oppression laws we've had we've had prohibitionism we've had marijuana laws we have people we have the biggest population of prisoners in the world per capita in America today today because of marijuana laws we are not a libertarian nation we we've got to get over this goddamn ideal we did engender because of our English heritage a lot of the thinkers that inspire us but they don't inspire the people and the enormous part I mean we are not in the libertarian civilization America prospered because of capitalism which was partly Unleashed because of somewhat liberal ideas because of our English heritage but we are not a free country we're not the best we're just the biggest and that was powerful right now we have got to delink this idea of combining Americanism and libertarianism you know libertarians believe in the value of the individual right every individual what why are we so racist what why do we care about Americans or Westerners I mean why is America special we're not special well yeah I think I think people would wouldn't necessarily say that Americans are superior I hope that they wouldn't say that we're superior to any other people in any other country I think what they would think the positive way to say it is that they like their the system of government they think it's better than other the system of governments of many other countries but it's not better what would you say is better than the American system in Turkey oh dear but there's no country that you could point to and say there I'd rather live there because it's more like America capitalism well I mean so people say so people will say oK we've all the problems at least America's as good as we can get or the best of us with all its faults yeah but that's not a good argument mean I mean the u.s. is not that special I mean we're really just a temporary way station on the way to something else I mean democracy Francis Fukuyama you know the end of history the last man all that kind of stuff no we're not the we're not the end-all be-all of everything and we're temporary – democracy is inherently flawed and it's what what does it led to it's led to welfare rights and social justice warrior ISM I mean the West is not the end-all be-all and in America is not the is not the avatar of libertarianism I don't think so yeah I agree with that yeah America's is not perfect it's not it's not libertarian in the in the purest sense but let me let me get back to the we were talking about the these legal issues with blockchain technology and I tried to I tried to as playing devil's advocate trying to get you to to to to see if you would Bend on your libertarian beliefs when you saw the issues with privacy with potential tax evasion if that didn't change your mind what if blockchain system's lead to a world where you you basically anybody could publish anything they want there there's not any censorship so people could violate obscenity laws you can use their imagination just imagine the most depraved content being available for everybody to see and also there's even this idea of what are called assassination markets with these technologies you could anonymously pay somebody to perform a hit on somebody that you want to have killed so does any of that that's about the worst that I could think of does any of that make you rethink your your political use well i wouldn't equate copying information with killing people okay so i would say that you know killing people is murder and is wrong right well I guess I was getting at if this technology makes all these bad things possible well that justified making the government justified in saying okay all this libertarian stuff is great but we got it we got to tone it down because or else the country is going to blow apart well I think that the government technology is increasing at such a pace that things will become possible okay that we don't like people will have freedom they will have technology there are access to means they can do things I mean honestly I what is it 2019 now right I'd be surprised that by 2040 someone hasn't some Muslim hasn't nuked New York or DC I mean it's gonna happen right I hope not too but technology is just the proliferation of information and you know and that's gonna happen we can't stop it so it's gonna happen so it's not good but should we empower the government to make a police state to stop it because number one and won't stop it and number number two wouldn't be just any way so it's a tough problem I mean to be honest in my view the problem in the world is super superstition and religion okay now how do you eliminate that I don't I actually don't think you can I think we have to wait I mean we we might have a setback in the next 90 years if New York and DC are nuked by Islamic terrorists which probably will happen we're gonna have a show for a like I mean it's not gonna be pretty so now so so with what I've said then you must be pretty excited about blockchain and related technology because it's basically going to move forward your your agenda isn't it right so you you are you pretty excited how technology is kind of doing things maybe even faster than you could do by other means well yeah that's my ultimate hope for Humanity is that technology will increase and allow us to escape our primitive roots yes okay okay in terms of money money I mean look my view is not the same as everyone I encounter in the Bitcoin space but my view is that money is a sui generis or a unique good right and like money is something that's useful and essential but you is different in that increasing the supplied does not make us wealthier right you follow me yes so you can't print it so this is one reason I'm skeptical of the fractional reserve types like George Elgin these guys but I don't think money is our biggest problem now I do I do think that central reserve banking allows governments to get away with inflating their money supply and and paying for projects they couldn't otherwise pay for so if we got rid of that it would hamper the state which is a good thing which I think by the way is inevitable yeah and then Bitcoin with its limited supply tries to move us to a world where the government can't manipulate the money supply and do a lot of the things that you you don't like correct so yeah so it's interesting that that people could be arguing about politics and and trying to advance the country in their direction that they want but it's interesting that technology seems to be a catalyst that moves things along and it's much more powerful than any any other discussions or any other methods to to kind of move the country along in some direction so if it seems to me that that is true that people cannot avoid the inexorable advance of Technology right and technology broadly defined is like the way of using methods and techniques that work right to advance human interests right right all right so then so then blockchain and all the changes that it's bringing to us are a net good and all these issues a lot of them are positives and some of the negative one admittedly there's some negative consequences but they don't deter from the overall value of having these freedom enhancing technologies well I wouldn't say they're any negative consequences of blockchain what do you mean well just any okay any technology that gives people freedom can be abused like guns right people can abuse guns so when that's the point that I was making that these these freedom enhancing technologies are a net good and so we shouldn't be talking about how to ban them or eliminate them well I don't look that good I think they are but that's not my argument because I'm not a utilitarian so like I'm not thinking like we should ban things or allow them if we have a committee decide whether they're net goods or not I mean your big thing is property rights and protecting private property rights is that well my thing is what every human being is every human being is individual they want to have their pursue their own goals and they regard as an enemy people who interlope and want to interfere with what they're doing right so I would never want to justify an institutional interference in what people are doing I mean people should do what they want to do so Bitcoin to me and all these things I mean are just the outcome of inner vow in turns along people right okay now we've we've touched a lot of topics and I appreciate you talking to somebody as ignorant of politics and economics as I am before we close is did I miss anything or is there any other comments you want to mention to our listeners of people that are interested in and thinking about these these topics the legal issues of these technologies and also anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism want to add anything else no I think you covered it actually very well so I appreciate that okay so thank you Stefan for our chat and appreciate you enlightening us and yeah until we talk next time best wishes to you and your family you too thanks a lot I am

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *