Raches on Money
In another thread, discussion diverged into a tangent on money, monetary policy, central banking, the history thereof in various countries, and the application thereof in present-day American politics. As I thereby observed, my own views “are rather nuanced: As an admirer of Hitler’s régime (and of Schacht’s work at the Reichsbank), I obviously do not have an absolutist principle against fiat money—and as a Bitcoiner (and a bit of a goldbug), I obviously have no great love for the U.S. Federal Reserve scam.”
Fiat money and central banking are powerful tools. Although some tools are more susceptible to abuse than others, categorically praising or condemning tools in absolutist terms is usually a mark of simplemindedness.
The tools at hand can be used to help revive an economy that is in such dire straits, the gold standard is not even a practical option for want of gold reserves; that was the case in Hitler’s Germany. Or they can be abused to skim the cream off the top of an economy for the delectation of bankers and corrupt governments; that is the case of the U.S. Federal Reserve, a system that was substantially born into American law together with its twin, the Marxist progressive income tax.
The American implementations of central banking, fiat money, and the income tax work in tandem, as an integrated extractive system, to reduce the American livestock to slavery-by-another-name. Indeed, the typical American now has far more real value extracted from him than a Roman household slave—and unlike the latter, the American can never hope to buy his emancipation, as some Roman slaves did after saving up their own money. That the American people accept this is conclusive proof that they are natural born slaves—most likely with that tendency bred into their genetics. —This is an observation of reality. It is obviously not much of a libertarian argument, if I find Hitler’s central banking and taxation perfectly acceptable.
Gold is generally sound money; and moreover, the American government’s policy towards gold much reveals the nature of its tyranny. When Roosevelt seized the American people’s gold bullion in 1934, the result should have been immediate armed revolution—if the American people were not natural born slaves, as aforesaid. For the American government to forbid its people from owning gold for the next four decades shows the hollowness of America’s pretense at being a “free country”. Oh, “the Land of the Free”—where the government can treat gold coins and bars as “contraband”! And in substantial effect, the Nixon Shock did to other (ostensibly) sovereign governments what Roosevelt had done domestically.
Bitcoin is sound money. Its nature is frequently misunderstood; that is unsurprising, for it is the invention of a totally new form of money. Its implementation is free speech: The unrestricted, permissionless communication of financial information—which I argue must perforce be protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, thus subjecting any American regulation thereof to “strict scrutiny”. Its fundamental value derives from the financial consensus by which, as a new form of money, it facilitates economic activity which would otherwise be inconvenient, expensive, or totally impractical. This is no mere theory: I have seen productivity happen, which would not have happened but for Bitcoin and Bitcoin’s monetary characteristics. And with a supply cap as a part of its consensus, Bitcoin is an excellent store of value. In future Proems, I will elaborate on my theory of Bitcoin’s nature, its characteristics, and its value fundamentals, in addition to technical discussion.
But I do not idealize these forms of money as the best in all conceivable circumstances. Indeed, I wish for something better. Gold markets are susceptible to manipulation—much to the profit of Jewish bankers, as seen in history. The scarcity which helps to make gold valuable can itself cause economic problems—which can be manipulated to feed into wars and revolutions, as also seen in history. And Bitcoin suffers some of gold’s problems—in addition to the obvious problem that it depends on the existence of a technological, industrial society to support the Internet. I do not idealize deflation; I actually dislike deflation, although I prefer it to the inflation which punishes savers.
Upon analyzing these problems, I have tried every which way I can imagine to design a Bitcoin-like new money with better economic characteristics. I ultimately conclude that the ideal money requires a trustworthy government. In the absence thereof, I much prefer goldbug economics and anarchic cypherpunk money.
By analogy, consider censorship. Censorship, like central banking and fiat money, is a powerful tool. I would willingly accept, and even prefer to live under the censorship régime of Reichsminister Dr. Goebbels. If I did, then I may need to abstain from saying some things I want to say—for the greater good; that would be acceptable to me, if Dr. Goebbels shuts down the liars, mass-manipulators, and culture-distorters. By the same light, I would accept fiat currency issued by a government which genuinely cares about the economic well-being of the people. The same considerations apply to taxation, and to numerous other aspects of government.
Liberty and Authority
On a related note, I think that intelligent libertarians are closer to authoritarians than seen by those who see only the surface. In America, much of what is now called “libertarianism” would have been called “conservatism” eighty or a hundred years ago; that political heritage has been corrupted and distorted by pot-smoking hippies and raving lunatics, but it is still there beneath the surface. And the deeper tendencies of a conservative may turn to what Professor Oliver called a “rational authoritarianism”; he himself was a liberty-oriented conservative, an admirer of Albert Jay Nock, before he turned to praise Adolf Hitler. Adjusting some of his own terminology, I call the Oliverian political trajectory the “Cicero to Caesar Pipeline”—a much more refined, aristocratic version of the so-called “libertarian to alt-right pipeline”.
I myself am an authoritarian with some libertarian sympathies. I do not see any contradiction in that: Just as my extreme long-term individual selfishness leads me to a worldview centered around connections to others, so do I realize that my deep desire for personal liberty can be manifested and defended only through a hierarchical, authoritarian group. Amongst one’s own,—together with others, there is a freedom that can never be had by individual atoms floating in an anthropoid sea, each alone in the crowd—each a slave of the ochlocratic mass, in the universal slavery of each to all. I diagonally cut the “libertarian-authoritarian spectrum” to shreds.
Although libertarianism, and also U.S. electoral politics, are not the primary topics hereof, these subjects will inevitably arise in a discussion of money and monetary policy. I will therefore permit such discussion in the comments, as long as it more or less relates to money.
Whereupon I invite Unz Review commentators to talk about money. ®
 It also showed, yet again, that an American promise can never be trusted—a principle already well-known to anyone who had been paying attention.
 To my knowledge, this argument is original to me. I hope to see others take it up.
 I did specify: In America. In Europe, “conservatism” has always had a different meaning, often related to monarchism.
 I do detest the stupider breed of libertarians, who tend to rant and rave and spout lists of quotes instead of presenting logical arguments; but that is a problem with many ideologies, not only libertarianism. It is especially bad anywhere at the political fringes.