This is an opinion editorial by Mickey Koss, a West Point graduate with an economics degree. He spent four years in the infantry before transferring to the Finance Corps.
Subjective values are not a way to apply objective measures and open society to a litany of anti-liberty and anti-individual action in the name of the general good.
The main problem is that individuals who do not value bitcoin have determined that its lack of subjective value justifies censorship of energy use, among other things, in the name of social good. I don’t think they realize the precedent it sets.
- It’s not hot enough outside, so we’re killing the power to your air conditioner.
- Watching “The Kardashians” is a waste of energy, so we’re going to reduce the amount of energy entering your home.
- It’s still not cold enough, so we’re cutting off the gas to your furnace.
- Your car is too big for you to drive alone, so we will 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 enforcing their subjective values. Although the examples seem stupid at first glance, I never thought that a farmer should protest to continue farming until it started happening in the Netherlands.
Things like this are always justified for the good of society.
“Therefore, it is necessary that the individual finally realizes that his own ego is unimportant in comparison with 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 long as we work together to form a society, the society is not affected, only the individuals.
Keynesian Values Revealed
I’ll never forget the insensitive math used to justify minimum wage hikes in my macroeconomics class in grad school. Given the estimated supply and demand curves, we were supposed to calculate the increase in unemployment versus the wage gains of 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 outcome from the start: wage gains would always exceed unemployment losses.
Applied to a real-life scenario, it’s not hard to imagine this being true of all policy decisions. Estimating Equations to do some math to produce more estimates. We got exactly the result we wanted and our math backs it up. Science, baby.
What about the individual?
I did all the math correctly, but my recommendation is where I lost points:
“I do not recommend raising the minimum wage because it leads to an increase in unemployment. Forcing people to quit 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 value, casually brushed off concerns by using unemployment insurance as justification. And this was at the No. 1 public policy school in America at the time.
“Screw the common people. Let them become dependent on the government.”
Any act on an individual can be justified for 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 because, at least subconsciously, they know it takes away their power to try to finesse society from their ivory towers.
A thousand people losing their jobs is fine as long as they are faceless statistics in pseudoscience math equations.
What about the single mother, the single father, the family of five, the first generation American, who struggle every day to live meaningful and dignified lives, to show their children what it means to earn and provide? As I was doing these calculations, I couldn’t help but think of the broken faces of the broken people, coming home to tell their families that they had failed that day, that their ladder of existence in this broken world was over of falling into disgrace, that their future was now uncertain.
If I need to lie to myself to get an A on an economics paper, then I’m fine with telling the truth.
Bitcoin and the Puppet
I could listen to the famous Dr. Jordan Peterson for hours. If I’m honest, I already have and will continue to do so. His gift of language stands out magnificently in his analysis of the children’s story “Pinotxo”.
Pinocchio’s journey leads him to accept responsibility as he enters the belly of the beast to save his father. Self-realization leads to the person. Everyday responsibility is the act of the everyday hero. Without responsibility we have nothing. And yet, without scarcity, there can never be accountability at the macro and political levels of society.
The journey to the bitcoin standard leads to radical self-responsibility and cuts the ties of control from the so-called experts who desperately want to control you. We will no longer be marionettes, puppets dancing through life at the end of a fiat string.
We will no longer be statistics and aggregates, parts of excessively and intentionally complicated equations used to justify sacrifice in the name of the common good. It will no longer be possible with the bitcoin standard. With the reintroduction of scarcity into the market, general dictates will no longer be financially viable.
There is no society without an individual. There are no social effects. Only people who make decisions on the sidelines. Sacrificing people is and always will be immoral. If you want a better society, accountability is probably a good place to start. Bitcoin solves this.
This is a guest post by Mickey Koss. The opinions expressed are entirely my own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.