BBC 5 live investigates Silk Road and Bitcoins
N.B. I am not Davy
Download episode MP3 [48:57]
BBC’s “5 live investigates” programme spends 40 minutes discussing The Dark Web, in particular Silk Road, the online agorist marketplace, and Bitcoin, the new digital currency and method of payment used at Silk Road.
I wish more Bitcoin proponents would embrace the Silk Road, and what it stands for, as a positive social force; both for Bitcoin’s growth and success, but also more generally as a new tool for the safe disobedience of unjust laws. Instead it seems they more often try to downplay the size and influence of Silk Road (falsely too), in an attempt to distance themselves, and the rest of the Bitcoin community, from the “illegal activity” going on. This is a strategy from Bitcoiners that I honestly don’t understand. There seems to be this notion amongst Bitcoiners, even the more libertarian ones, that if Bitcoin becomes too associated with “criminal activity” that it will damage Bitcoin’s image forever in the eyes of the public, and thus it won’t grow into something that is mainstream. But what is the goal here? What are the ends? Surely we don’t want Bitcoin to fit into the paradigm of the current mainstream; we want it become the new mainstream! It will never become seen as revolutionary tool if we attempt to marginalize every given use of it that the State deems to be a crime by mere fiat. That’s the opposite of revolutionary; that’s just perpetuating what is already mainstream.
Like Amir Taaki, aka genjix, who was interviewed on this programme. One of the biggest faces in the Bitcoin community — this guy gets interviewed everywhere! But for a self-described anarchist, Amir sure seems quick to fully accept the premises that are always put forth by his interviewers, that these voluntary exchanges between consenting adults are indeed heinous crimes that should be shunned by society, despite being victimless of course. But don’t let that paint Bitcoin with a bad brush guys, because it’s only a tiny part of the Bitcoin economy. Bitcoin can be used for non-crimes too! No, wrong answer Amir! Do we want Bitcoin to be revolutionary or don’t we?
From Wikipedia, on counter-economics and agorism:
Konkin’s agorism, as exposited in his New Libertarian Manifesto, postulates that the correct method of achieving a voluntary society is through advocacy and growth of the underground economy or “black market” — the “counter-economy” as Konkin put it — until such a point that the State’s perceived moral authority and outright power have been so thoroughly undermined that revolutionary market anarchist legal and security enterprises are able to arise from underground and ultimately suppress government as a criminal activity (with taxation being treated as theft, war being treated as mass murder, et cetera).
Let that strategy sink in for a moment, and apply the logic to what Bitcoin enables: The Silk Road. A new era for agorism. It should be embraced by anti-statists everywhere.
The success of Silk Road has unequivocally helped Bitcoin grow, and far from it being only a tiny fraction of the Bitcoin economy, it is actually a very large and very active part of it. And we should expect that, because it is probably the greatest appeal of Bitcoin. In terms of its size relative to the Bitcoin economy as a whole, Silk Road is probably the second largest marketplace only behind the exchange of currencies themselves. If we’re talking the sale of real products by merchants to consumers for bitcoins, you only have to sign up and login to witness the large volume of legitimate trading that goes on there every day. It’s clear that it’s not actually small relative to other Bitcoin markets. And that’s something we can point to and applaud. Bitcoin enabled that to happen! Its success speaks volumes for the power of Bitcoin as the new paradigm. So if you’re also against the drug war, why aren’t you embracing that? Because you want to manipulate those who are in favour of the drug war into accepting Bitcoin, in some misguided attempt to garner mainstream attention? Meh. What’s the point? Those people will never accept Bitcoin anyway.
I’ve seen many an interview with Amir and other prominent members of the Bitcoin community, and this always seems to be the case whenever the so-called crimes enabled by Bitcoin are brought up. Now, I don’t know if Amir is in agreement with the drug war or not, but I suspect probably not. So why doesn’t he argue it from that perspective? I just don’t understand it. The earlier interview with the American student — a user of Silk Road — was far more exciting to me.
My two bitcents.
– dvide
February 9th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
I don’t think the average Bitcoiner is necessarily worried about the Silkroad tainting Bitcoin’s image for other consumers, but for tainting the image for the U.S. Government. A lot of Bitcoin users are concerned about the legality of Bitcoin and how the U.S. Government will react to BTC. I think that that is why most of the spokespersons for Bitcoin stay away from the Silk Road. Also, yes, I know Bitcoin itself cannot be shut down. But the U.S. Government can make life very, very uncomfortable for Bitcoin users.
Also, Amir IS everywhere. Jeez!
-Jon
February 9th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
[...] Crosspost from TheUKLibertarian.com. [...]
February 9th, 2012 at 6:24 pm
excellent point dvide. this general fear of upsetting the parents is something ive noticed in other libertarian issues.
As the excellent Doug Stanhope says – start the argument from where you want to get. when fighting prohibition dont start making the case for medical marijuana – start with the truth that you want to use drugs for enjoyment. almost all libertarian material i have seen that discusses prohibition starts with the same comprimising, self defeating position that drugs are bad and their use should be discouraged but legal prohibition is wrong in only a theoretical academic sense. very few libertarians stand up for the truth that drugs are enjoyable and that that should be the end of it.
likewise in the IP/violent-ownership-of-thought debate, opponents of IP start with the pathetic acceptance of the mainstream position that copying patterns of information is theft. these ‘opponents’ of IP make the same climbdown over torrenting/piracy/counterfeiting as these bitcoiners do over the free exchanges of the silkroad. they downplay the current extent of the ‘problem,’ explain away the future continuation or growth of ‘the problem’ and basically disagree only on style rather than substance. they tend to focus on ‘morally acceptable’ copying like the economic benefits of non proprietary pharmaceuticals.
likewise all the other issues on which the libertarian position currently seems unacceptable – prostitution, child workers, non enforcement of education, drugs, IP. we should not shy away from the full conclusion of our position and the positives of what are currently and irrationally seen to be undesirable.
even the great Walter Block(no sarcasm – i have the utmost respect for Block and his work), author of ‘Defending the undefendable’ is guilty of this. He is a self admitted social/moral conservative. you need only look at interviews in which he discusses the book to find his explanation of why prostitution etc is not desirable, is unlikely etc etc.
watering down the libertarian position in order to attract support from people who would not agree with its logical conclusions is a waste of time at best and disingenuous at worst. if the truth is extreme then moderation is a lie.
February 9th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Very well said Will. I agree with that 100%. As Rand termed it, philosophizing in midstream never seems to be appropriate to me, whether as a genuine mistake or as an intended ‘strategy’ to appeal to the middle ground. As a ‘strategy’ I just find it to be manipulative more than anything.
February 9th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
I think it’s more a case of consider your audience and pick your battles. The Overton Window is a good model for moving from the unthinkable to the mainstream, and it relies on an incremental approach.
February 9th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Thanks James. I’d never heard of the Overton Window before. It’s interesting to see a more formalized model of this incremental approach. Not that I agree with it. Again, it just seems manipulative. For example:
“Other formulations of the process created after Overton’s death add the concept of moving the window, such as deliberately promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous “outer fringe” ideas, with the intention of making the current fringe ideas acceptable by comparison”
So in that case, we should all be devil’s advocates for child porn markets in order to make the drug markets seem less heinous crimes by comparison. But you can’t tell anyone that you’re just playing the devil’s advocate, because that would ruin the manipulation :)
But anyway, the Overton Window doesn’t seem to suggest that arguing for the fringe position is always bad strategy.
‘Proponents of policies outside the window seek to persuade or educate the public so that the window either “moves” or expands to encompass them.’
February 10th, 2012 at 12:08 am
Whilst I’m at it another criticism id like to level at libertarianism is this ‘aim high’ strategy where people talk about statelessness without believing in its desirability. I mean the way in which a minarchist or, more often, actually a border-line regular statist conservative will, as described in the above approach, talk about statelessness with nothing more than the intention of shifting the frame of debate on a moderate issue such as the style of state regulated health care.
the number of bloggers that enjoy throwing around anti state language but then it turns out they don’t mind paying for the style and scale of coercion their rose tinted memory has imagined.