This is an opinion piece by Mickey Koss, a West Point graduate with a degree in economics. He spent four years in the infantry before moving to the Finance Corps.
Subjective values are not a way to impose objective measures and open society to a litany of anti-freedom and anti-individual actions in the name of the common good.
The main problem is that individuals who dislike bitcoin have determined that their lack of subjective value justifies censorship of energy use, among other things, in the name of societal good. I don’t think they realize the precedent that creates.
- It’s not warm enough outside, so we cut off the power to your air conditioning.
- Watching “The Kardashians” is a waste of energy, so we’re going to reduce the amount of energy entering your home.
- It’s not cold enough yet, so we’re shutting off the gas to your boiler.
- Your car is too big for you to drive alone, so we’re going to limit your ability to buy fuel.
- Bitcoin is a waste of energy, so we need to ban mining or change the code.
Each statement is essentially the same. Someone else is applying their subjective values. Although the examples seem silly at first glance, I would never have thought that a farmer would have to protest to continue farming until this started to happen in the Netherlands.
Such things are always justified for the greater good of society.
“The individual must therefore come to realize that his own ego has no importance in relation to the existence of the nation, that the position of the individual is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation in its together. —Adolf Hitler
There are no groups. There are no group effects. There are only individuals. As we work together to form a society, society cannot be affected, only individuals.
Keynesian values revealed
I will never forget the ruthless math used to justify minimum wage hikes in my macroeconomics class in graduate school. Given the estimated supply and demand curves, we were supposed to calculate the increase in unemployment relative to wage gains for those who remain employed after the minimum wage increase.
To get an A+, your conclusion had to affirm the decision to raise the minimum wage. The way the equations were written dictated the result from the start: wage gains would always offset unemployment losses.
Applied to a real scenario, it is not difficult to imagine that this is true for all political decisions. Estimate equations to make calculations to produce more estimates. We got exactly the result we wanted and our calculations confirm it. Science, baby.
What about the individual?
I did all the math correctly, but my recommendation is where I lost points:
“I don’t recommend raising the minimum wage because it leads to increased unemployment. Forcing people out of their jobs is immoral.
The professor, who had written his thesis on the elasticity of demand for commodities in sub-Saharan Africa – estimated using estimates with little real world value – casually dismissed concerns by using insurance- unemployment as justification. And that was at the #1 ranked school of public policy in the United States at the time.
“To hell with the plebs. Let them become dependent on the government.
Any act on an individual can be justified by the greater good of society. There are no limiting principles and this slope is steep and slippery.
Good riddance Keynes
I think the resistance of the intellectual class to bitcoin is due to the fact that, at least subconsciously, they know that it takes away their power to try to refine society from their ivory tower.
A thousand people losing their jobs is fine as long as they remain faceless statistics in the mathematical equations of pseudoscience.
What about the single mother, the single father, the family of five, America’s first generation, struggling every day to live a worthy and dignified life, to show their children what it means to earn and support needs to ? As I did these calculations, I couldn’t help but think of the broken faces of broken people, returning home to tell their families that they had failed that day, that their scale of existence was tottering in this broken fiat world had just fallen into disgrace, that their future was now uncertain.
If I need to lie to myself to get an A in an economics paper, then I’m okay with telling the truth.
Bitcoin and the puppet
I could listen to the famous Dr. Jordan Peterson for hours. If I’m honest, I’ve done it before and I will continue to do it. His gift for language is beautifully showcased in his analysis of the children’s story “Pinocchio”.
Pinocchio’s journey leads him to accept responsibility as he enters the Belly of the Beast to save his father. Self-realization leads to personality. Daily responsibility is the act of the daily hero. Without accountability, we have nothing. And yet, without scarcity, there can never be accountability at the macro and political levels of society.
The journey to standard bitcoin leads to radical self-responsibility and cuts the ties of control from the so-called experts who so desperately want to control you. We will no longer be puppets, puppets dancing through life on a flat string.
We will no longer be statistics and aggregates, parts of overly and deliberately convoluted equations used to justify sacrifices in the name of the common good. This will no longer be possible on the bitcoin standard. With rarity reintroduced to the market, General Dictates will no longer be financially viable.
There is no society without the individual. There are no societal effects. Only individuals making decisions on the margins. Sacrificing individuals is and always will be immoral. If you want a better society, accountability is probably a good place to start. Bitcoin fixes that.
This is a guest post by Mickey Koss. The opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.