undefined | Better HN

0 pointsxg158y ago0 comments

> The libertarian position on wealth inequality is that as long as the distribution of wealth was determined voluntarily (without state privilege, in particular), then there is no problem. Bitcoin is such a system: all participation in Bitcoin has been voluntary. Early adopters took a big risk on a fledgling technology, and some have been rewarded with handsome returns.

I could never really make sense of that position. Voluntarily by whom? Why would you ever voluntarily agree to a high-inequality society where you are at the lower end?

I don't think bitcoin is a valid example because it's something that (right now) you can choose to ignore completely without any negative consequences for you. Therefore, high inequality is not necessarily a problem.

The moment bitcoin would become the single dominating currency, the situation would be completely different.

0 comments

sf_rob8y ago

>Why would you ever voluntarily agree to a high-inequality society where you are at the lower end?

In terms of political philosophy, most libertarians come at it through a rights based framework (see: Bastiat, Locke) and believe rights to be non-arbitrary. You seem to be suggesting a more self-interested framework which I'm not going to argue for/against.

In terms of reality, libertarians skew wealthy and less social. Like most groups they are more likely to rationalize a system that is congruent on the surface with their place in society.

xg15OP8y ago

> In terms of reality, libertarians skew wealthy and less social. Like most groups they are more likely to rationalize a system that is congruent on the surface with their place in society.

Well yes, I too can think up the philosophy of xg15ism in which people like me are well off at the cost of everyone else - and then demand that society implement it, pretty please.

I just don't see how that would bring us forward in any way.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse