The Way Out. https://medium.com/@mike.brock/the-way-out-1fb9177f0e1b

Some Thoughts on the TikTok Ban And Liberal Democracy. https://medium.com/@mike.brock/some-thoughts-on-the-tiktok-ban-and-liberal-democracy-ed6b4ce70fd6

Technological determinism is a real mind virus that afflicts way too many people in my field. It’s pervasive and has led an incredibly large group of people to make dramatic philosophical errors. The book, the Sovereign Individual, has played at outsized role among many people — especially in the “web3” space — at convincing people of the inevitability of future outcomes. Balaji’s “network states” are really just another revision on these philosophical errors, born of foundationalist a priori notions about moral truths. The best attempts at defending these moral truths — such as things like praxeology — are completely unconvincing and are just tautologies that assume the things they set out to prove. In particular, property rights as intractable consequences of the moral necessity to enable human action by a fundamental — not social — right to the product of one’s own labor. These arguments all also boil down to “this future is going to happen whether you like it or not”, which really betrays the epistemically authoritarian nature of this thinking, which denies the possibility for, and the normative possibility of collection action in defense of a common good.

I will also say, this same argument, when generalized brings into question the whole concept of digital contracts as workable at all. The idea of self-executing contracts that can be used to revolutionize everything from property titles to equities trading. But any sane workable system is going to rely on truth oracles that have some social component to deal with disputes. And if that’s true, then we’re probably right back in good old regular law courts. At which point, the question just immediately needs to be asked: why do we have these digital contracts in the first place? I actually think this is a completely fatal blow to the entire idea of Web3. The intractable problem is staring you in the face, if you do some philosophical exploration of the people. View quoted note →

I’m somewhat skeptical that there’s some technological solution around the corner, where the scaling issues around bitcoin are going to be solved to such a degree, that all payments themselves can be trustless. The main reason being that all of the solutions being pursued thus far, achieve trustlessness by giving up on the possibility of recourse in the transaction. The only real counterparty probelem being solved then, is eliminating the possibility of settlement default, once a transaction has been arranged. But this has never been the only trust issue in payment arrangements. Most of the kinds of default that people think about in the real world, have nothing to do with the possibility of non-settlement, and everything to do with the possibility of breach of contract on the delivery of goods or rendering of services. To the extent that bitcoin scaling discussions set these issues aside, and instead center the discussion around durability in only the most adversarial situations (resisting state overreach, usually) — a broader understanding of the way economic advancement comes about is ignored. Economies don’t flourish simply because they have reliable money and payment schemes. They flourish because social trust is possible — that people will honor contracts, commitments, won’t resort to violent means of dispute resolution. This is actually why I find the anarcho-capitalist frame of thinking around bitcoin so distracting to moving bitcoin forward. The target it’s aiming for, simply bypasses all of these notions, and is really just an exercise in question begging. “But if we have recourse on payments, how will that prevent the government being able to regulate or censor it?” If that’s what you think is the highest good to be considered in the project of finding ways to scale bitcoin payments, then I’d suggest that none of the solutions you land on are going to be satisfactory for mainstream use — ever. Because there can never be a way to control for matters of social trust through cryptographic protocols alone. We are not digital light beings that live inside computers, that can be forced to act or not act based on computational rules. Our interaction with any technology is always analog and mediated by a social context — where all the interesting problems of counterparty risk exist. This is, of course, what the insight was that led to the creation of tbDEX. Instead of any doubts being raised in me about this observation, the stridency of my stance here has only increased, as I’ve watched the conversation move forward.

Elections are a legitimizing function for political power. That is the role they play. Approaching electoral choices like a purity test and one of cosmic significance to your character, is downstream of some very impoverished understandings of both democracy and society itself. Ultimately, we have to confront the pragmatic reality that we are ultimately navigating a hierarchy of good. If you resist this notion, you’re actually participating in a fairly dangerous game of reducing the umbrella of interests the political economy will be responsive to, to the most craven — if for no other reason than smaller polities are easier to capture. For me, character is just as important as policy in thinking about these things, because the question I ask myself about who I want having power, is not one merely about “what policies does this person support?” — but a more subtle one: “who would I feel more comfortable disagreeing with, knowing the conversation can continue, and that our current policy commitments remain, in perpetuity, provisional?”

People wonder why I have chosen to infuse philosophy so deeply in my work style and even professionally. Daniel explains the power of this better than I can, in this 10 minute video. He is one of my personal heroes. I got to meet him once, and it was one of the few times I got genuinely star struck. He was gentle, patient and kind and seemed to enjoy answering all my dumb questions.

X (formerly Twitter)

Big Think (@bigthink) on X

We're deeply saddened by professor Daniel Dennett's passing. We recently had the privilege of interviewing Dennett for our Legends series. It is wi...

Are we a fragmented society of hostile factions fighting for dominance, or do we contain and retain some collective capacity for maintaining some conception of the common good? And I note that both external and internal arguments are being made to undermine that notion. Some of you, are taken by those notions, and for that I can only express my sadness. Even I hope for your redemption and return to the project.

The problem with identity politics often isn't the social injustices they highlight. Those things are often quite obvious and hard for us to ignore. The problem is when we close off the possibility of redemption. Because if we can't see each other as redeemable, then we really have no basis for sharing a civilization. And I make this same general argument as harshly to my right as I make it to my left. And I'll complete the thought for you: if there's no redemption possible, there's also no point in having an argument at all. And from that conclusion, nothing good comes.

Just because someone is wrong about something, doesn't make them a bad person. What matters more, when it comes to character, is if they're open to having their mind changed. ... and if you're not, in principle, open to having your mind changed, we're having a whole other conversation all together. I would also suggest that people be preoccupied with this basic insight, because I might suggest it's actually the basis for civilization existing at all.

The thing about the stability of systems, is it has absolutely nothing to do with ossification and everything to do with adaptability. People misunderstand this to their peril. In all domains: politics, economics, and yes: bitcoin.

How to have sane takes on things, in a few easy steps: 1. Consider what you believe. 2. Seek out the best arguments you can find that contradict what you believe, and carefully consider these arguments. 3. If you cannot figure out why these arguments are wrong, and make good logical arguments against them, reduce the credence that you’re right. Perhaps even consider changing your mind. The end. Addendum: If you are unaware of good arguments against your deeply held economic, political, or ethical position, this is a very intellectually suspicious state of affairs.

Was happy to speak at the Bitcoin Policy Summit in DC this morning about why I think Bitcoin is valuable.

I have an incomplete essay on my criticisms about the Austrian school. It's not complete. I might finish it. I might not. But the core thrust of the argument is there.

Google Docs

The Philosophical Flaws of Austrian Economics: A Critique

The Philosophical Flaws of Austrian Economics: A Critique Introduction The Austrian school of economics, despite its significant influence on econ...

Land taxes are the most defensible form of taxation. Fight me.

Uh, my essay taking on The Sovereign Individual is getting very long. It's greater than a 20 minute read at this point. And I have also found myself bringing in Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia" into it. I am approaching my critiques very much through the lens of Epistemic Liberalism, that I've been kicking around. But yeah, this is going to be some deeply academic reading.

More thoughts. docs.google.com/document/d/1cc…

I Am An Epistemic Liberal. https://medium.com/@mike.brock/i-am-an-epistemic-liberal-8fac669245de