I'm not a moral realist so I think that libertarian philosophy is nothing but the most venal elements of capitalism congealed in thought, but I should add that the classical formulation of libertarianism is internally incoherent. You omit that for any transaction to be legitimate it must not only be voluntary but must also consist of the exchange of things legitimately acquired in the past, i.e. voluntarily acquired. This chain of voluntary exchange is what is supposed to grant one a title to that thing. But of course, in reality, that does not exist in the least. The distribution of things over history is primarily a function of brute coercion and happenstance. Nozick knew as much, and his suggestion is as pitiful as his scruples: we need to 'reset' society according to the Rawlsian difference principle and then begin our libertarian accounting.

In any case, I can't take seriously anyone who thinks that humans aren't interested in freedom because they want to be free to do things, i.e. I want to be free to see my family not only in that I don't want someone to stop me from doing so, but I also want the means to be able to do so. The one is more or less pointless without the other. And that obviously requires more than negative liberty. Or that, in another vein, that capitalist enterprises are not vehicles of accumulated power that sustain themselves by exploiting workers, ordered along hierarchical top-down principles. One only need step into sociological reality to see as much.

So about bitcoin...

Sorry. Libertarian philosophy is my bete noire. But the point is evident enough: I highly doubt libertarians can offer a credible macro-economic justification for the creation of a decentralised currency sustained by the whims of the market alone, and that they rely on the force of a prior moral theory. If the moral theory is void, so is the justification. I'm not sure how you would go about justifying bitcoin on its own terms. Its outside of effective social control, consumes masses of electricity, relies on centralised economies of scales in mining, and doesn't have any use-function apart from being a store of value. I imagine that blockchain technologies will have lots of useful applications down the road, but bitcoin is a primitive piece of technology that probably has a net negative effect on the world.

> being a store of value

You yourself have hit on the justification for Bitcoin's use.

Bitcoin relies on other people to buy in and hodl in order to fulfill its value storing properties. If people stopped buying more (at higher prices since it's a fixed supply) then the value would plummet, and that would be a terrible value store if your value plummets while being stored in it.

> 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.

Buuuuut, they bought it with fiat currencies, in many cases USD. So... right there the entire idea breaks down. Still, maybe that's unfair. A valid criticism of this argument is that it's a variant of the the serf comic argument (or genetic fallacy) in which those embedded in a bad system may not question it because they benefit from it.

The real problem from a libertarian perspective is that bitcoin (and really all PoW blockcahins) just encodes how a new State, a plutocratic one based around processing power and energy availability, is formed. This is in a very literal sense what bitcoin encodes, with the miners being the only folks with any real votes (in that if miners as a group refused to mine other currencies and actively discourage others from doing so, other currencies cannot scale and are locked out).

Not that bitcoin is scaling all that well. Or eth for that matter.

As we've seen from recent research, Bitcoin is slightly better than existing systems at discouraging monopolies (because even accidental misuse could crash the currency), but I seriously doubt a mining duopoly dictating most of the future of bitcoin is something that any libertarian actually calls a positive outcome, other than a snarky nod to damaging existing states.

The long term evolution of the system is pivotal on some new, non-PoW scheme. PoS is the major contender right now. There might be other methods as derivations (e.g., PoW coupled with physical location, PoS with term limits, PoS with accreditation, etc). Non-PoW systems will also scale much more effectively than PoW systems, as well.

> they bought it with fiat currencies

No. Some people bought it with fiat currencies. Others mined for it. Still others exchanged goods and services for it.

The number of people who mined for it without using fiat currencies to buy the hardware and energy is, I submit, such an astronomically small value I'd demand you prove to me it exists at all. They might exist, but I suspect their stories are singular.

> Still others exchanged goods and services for it.

I'm not sure what your point is here. It's not difficult to imagine existing state currencies influence these processes. I've also pointed out it's not a very good argument for either side of the libertarian fence.

But hey, let's focus on minutiae as opposed to the larger ethical and social questions surrounding bitcoin and derivatives. That seems like a rad use of time.

> using fiat currencies to buy the hardware and energy

The process had to be bootstrapped somehow. And given that the world's economy at the time bitcoin was invented ran on fiat currency, it's not surprising that fiat currency was used to help bootstrap the process.

> I'm not sure what your point is here.

My point is that your original claim:

> Buuuuut, they bought it with fiat currencies, in many cases USD. So... right there the entire idea breaks down.

is false. Just because the process was bootstrapped with fiat currency does not imply that "the entire idea breaks down."

Did you read a sentence that you disagreed with and then immediately refused to finish the paragraph?

> A valid criticism of this argument is that it's a variant of the the serf comic argument (or genetic fallacy) in which those embedded in a bad system may not question it because they benefit from it.

I'm just saying, the idea that there is in fact an equitable pre-distribution of agency and power to draw from is fallacious. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try and create better systems; just that we shouldn't pretend such a thing existed.

When you begin your argument with a claim that is factually incorrect there is no need to read further to know that the argument is invalid.

So. You didn't read it. Proudly.

And it IS factually correct in that there was state-maintained fiat currency at the genesis of nearly every story, we just both agree it doesn't matter that much.

Consider how uninteresting this exchange is, and how much of our collective time you've wasted by not reading the entire post. You've spent MUCH more time talking with me (and I with you) than if you had JUST READ THE POST.

> You didn't read it.

Whether I read it or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that you opened your argument with a demonstrably false claim.

> And it IS factually correct in that there was state-maintained fiat currency at the genesis of nearly every story

That may be, but that's not what you said, nor is it what I disputed.

> Consider how uninteresting this exchange is

I dunno, I think it's kind of fascinating the lengths some people will go to to avoid saying something as simple as, "You're right, I phrased that badly. What I meant to say was..."

Point is that the distribution of bitcoin wealth is wholly dependent on distribution of fiat currency wealth.

But that's false. You always need some capital to make an investment in anything, but anyone with the foresight to recognize bitcoin's potential back in 2010 could mine and/or buy coins essentially for nothing.

And some were gifted it. I remember a handful of sites that would give you some BTC just for asking as a demonstration of the technology. It was worth roughly a cent or two at the time -- obviously much more now if held.

> 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.

>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.

> 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.

>Since taxes are not voluntary

>The libertarian position is that human interactions should be voluntary, so the coercion problem is where libertarians find issue first.

Do you believe obeying property law is voluntary? I find it to be coercive.

Not to directly answer your question, but to elaborate slightly, many political philosophers would draw a distinction between natural property (e.g. land, natural resources) and 'made' property. They would say that in the case of found property (land, natural resources), property rights are indeed artificial and coercive. But the value that has been added to those natural resources by the efforts of a person is theirs. This is, in part, the justification for the Land Value [1] tax. It's an interesting question where Bitcoin ownership may fall on that spectrum. I'm not sure, to be honest. But I think that might provide a framework for thinking about the issue.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

I think you're mixing up the argument of whether property is just with whether property is coercive.

The arguments you've outlined are drawing a distinction between which kinds of property are thought to be just by certain schools of thought. However, this is entirely unrelated to the fact that all forms of property are coercive -- enforcing them ultimately requires (the threat of) violence.

Most people fail to make this distinction unless they properly think it through, though I personally find it most grating with the type of libertarian who argues with the "non-aggression principle" or variants thereof. I believe people make this mistake because it can be uncomfortable to admit to yourself that you're in favor of something that is coercive, even when the coercive thing is clearly a good thing overall. I'm sure there's a fancy name for this type of fallacy :)

While this position is technically correct, it is absurd. By this logic, enforcing freedom from slavery is coercive as well, because it requires threat of violence.

Exactly! Which exposes the flaw in basing your political ideology around the removal of coercion.

Hmmm I think it's important to emphasise that anarcho-capitalism necessarily relies on coercion, but it's probably a strawman when speaking about its philosophical defenders. Libertarians want to maximise the account of freedom they build up from the originating premise of self-ownership. They are perfectly willing to license the use of coercion to uphold that propertarian system of rights. What they have issue with is the existence of an overweening state that has de facto and de jure power over you no matter what. They want the means of coercion to be privatised; to be outsourced to local militias, private security firms, and the like.

Of course, like all ideologies, they don't think of this as a system of accumulated power that exploits destitute workers and relies on dystopian bands of warlords to beat anyone who protests into submission, but as something like 'a pure state of freedom'.

Indeed, it is - which proves the parent's point. This would be an example of something that's both just and coercive.

But this definition is unusual and doesn't bring any insight. It reminds me about psychological egoism, that says that there is no altruism, everything is egoism. Technically correct, but doesn't help to explain altruism-behavior.

No, I don't believe so. Take taxes, taxes are coercive because if you refuse to follow tax law then the government enacts violence against you right?

Now take property, property is coercive because if you refuse to follow property law then the government enacts violence against you.

It's one to one.

Difference being that the first is someone taking your property and the second is you taking property from someone else.

Yep, you're totally right. My mistake. Good point.

Left-libertarians definitely find property law coercive.

Turns out if you're consistent in applying the NAP then homesteading becomes illegitimate as any exclusive claim on land which was previously free for anyone to make use of is an act of force against literally every other person in the area.

Yup, the homesteading principle is interesting and workable iff there is infinite land of the same sort of quality easily available to everyone.

IIRC the guy that came up with it agreed with that reading on it!

Instead of answering your question, I will leave this:

Very small children understand and recognize property, since it is a natural right. The toy in my hand is "mine," and when some other kid comes along and takes it, I get upset.

Whoever said this can not possibly have children. Small babies couldn't care less about toys which move in and out of their hands, except perhaps for the serious matter of tasting them.

They soon learn to say the word that other people use when they want to keep stuff. The actual meaning of the word, and that some people's ownership seems to have legitimacy, doesn't dawn on them until later.

(Just to clarify in the age of the Internet: I think we should respect ownership. But the argument that we should do it because it's an innate concept with babies is a bad one, even if it was true.)

>Very small children understand and recognize property, since it is a natural right. The toy in my hand is "mine," and when some other kid comes along and takes it, I get upset.

When a very small child in a poor family looks at what is under a wealthy family's Christmas tree he's also going to be upset. Does that make a relatively equal distribution of Christmas presents a natural right?

I see no basis for decrying all coercion and mandating transactions be voluntary yet also overlooking the biggest contributor to coercion: property.

Upset/uncomfortable - maybe, but at who? The rich family? His own family? Himself? Society? All of those?

People on hackernews and in general tend to view "negative" feelings, envy, etc... as generically "bad". These feelings are evolutionary signals from your primal brain that something isn't going right. Its up to you to fix that, however you see fit.

>Upset/uncomfortable - maybe, but at who? The rich family? His own family? Himself? Society? All of those?

"Upset" wasn't my word choice, I was just re-using what clark said to show the emptiness in using childhood feelings to determine what is and isn't a natural right. I don't actually believe our society should be governed by the feelings of children.

> These feelings are evolutionary signals from your primal brain that something isn't going right. Its up to you to fix that, however you see fit.

So rape and pillaging it is then.

I mean those two have pretty clear risks as well. Morality might moderate people's primal feelings but they are even better moderated by understanding opportunity - costs of the actions. Nevertheless, there is nothing inherently "bad" about "negative" feelings. They just tell you something isn't going right and you have to fix it. How you do that - is up to you.

Not all people feel the same way or get the same primal brain screams. Who decides who's right?

Whichever side has more hashing power. Err, I mean muscle+weapon power.

Yup, every armed robbery is a brain deciding that it can take stuff by force instead of making/creating/exchanging it.

> The toy in my hand is "mine,"

Then the stronger kid comes along and takes the toy away, because he is stronger and now it's in his hand and he says "it's mine".

Would you find it coercive to forbid the stronger kid to act this way by means of a law (enforced maybe by the teacher) that forbids stronger kids to steal from smaller kids?

edit: oppressive -> coercive, sorry

Yeah, right, I’m guessing that You have limited access to children. Otherwise You World have known that they recognize everything as their property (unless the original owner is stronger than them)

>Very small children understand and recognize property, since it is a natural right.

they also tend to shit when and where they want (would you say that "it is a natural right" too?). The point of upbringing in civilized society is to put under control the "natural" instincts. And what you mentioned is an instinct, not a right. The notion of rights comes later as the rules that the people with developed "bladder control" agree upon in order to live together and cooperate.

What is a "natural right?" How is one identified? How is it distinguishable from a right that is not a "natural right"?

It's begging the question by making the basics of your political philosophy axiomatic.

Private property has nothing to do with toys in your hand; so it's not related to this debate. Do children think owning a factory and making money off of workers working there is a natural right?

> he 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.

I'd like to remind the world there are such things as consequentialist Libertarians who view the value of their policy preferences based on their outcomes rather than the NAP.

Do you have any good reading material on consequentialist libertarians? I only ever run into deontological ones.

Honestly not really, the blog "bleeding heart libertarians" tends to focus on the consequentialist arguments more, but most of the contributors seem to be deontological in outlook.

Most of the consequentialists wind up becoming pretty standard neo-liberals as they are willing to consider government intervention when needed.

I'm sympathetic to the inflation argument, but it doesn't seem to match what actually happens. For example, Bitcoin inflated by about 20% in a 20-minute period yesterday. The theory doesn't seem to match the practice here.

What he means to say is that the currency goes up, prices go down.

So if a currency goes up in value, that's actually economic 'deflation', because the prices of goods go down.

Now - I don't agree with any of the commenters arguments at all, but the terms 'inflationary' and 'deflationary' are used in that context.

There are some that argue the inflation and deflation are not a function of the price of goods - rather - simply the amount of money in circulation and that's it. I think this is the Austrian position.

I'm not sure what you're trying to correct here. Are you thinking I used "inflation" to describe an increase in Bitcoin's price? I wasn't: Bitcoin's price spiked overall yesterday, but there was also a point where the price dropped by 20% in 20 minutes, and that's what I'm referring to.

"The libertarian position is that human interactions should be voluntary, so the coercion problem is where libertarians find issue first."

So basically everyone should be armed to their teeth? Because, if there is no state to impose control, a warlord will emerge who will. Or is there some other solution to the problem that humans have known tendencies toward violence and power hunger?

But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?[1]

[1] https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

That article paints a very unfair portrayal of Somalia. Pre war Somalia was involved in the collapse of a communist government, not exactly a stable before and after comparison (which I would think the author would acknowledge given their own Apples and Oranges comparison?). If we go back before that things were pretty damn stable, white pearl and all.

I guess maybe I'm just a bit put off because of the blurb towards the opening about "society A, which is filled with evil, ignorant savages who live under anarchy" (conveniently not naming any specific society, but hint hint, it reads a lot like the author implies either Somalia or Colombia). I thought we were past the whole racist Noble Savage thing.

> If, by hypothesis, the vast majority of people—although they have different conceptions of justice—can all agree that it is wrong to use violence to settle their honest disputes, then market forces would lead to peace among the private police agencies.

This is pretty much even sillier hypothesis than "if people agree to work together towards common good, through the forces of cooperation, they would achieve prosperity greater than it's possible in any competitive capitalist system" and that one was tried and proven false.

People agreeing that the violence is not the right way to resolve disputes? Author must somehow missed all of history right untill yesterday and have no friends or at least only friends without neighbours.

The core argument of that essay seems to be "Well yes, but maybe the warlords would be better than the government we have today. We don't have proof they wouldn't be."

... which seems rather weak to me.

>> Early adopters took a big risk on a fledgling technology

I can't agree with that. Early adopters really didn't take a lot of risk, they ran a mining program for a while, or bought some BTC for a few cents to a few dollars.

In some countries, Bitcoin has been outlawed. Owning stuff the government doesn't like is certainly a risk.

They also endured 90% drops in value from early peaks to troughs. Bitcoin could have gone to zero at any point if the system had failed. (It still could)

Some invested time learning about new technology that could've gone nowhere.

>> In some countries, Bitcoin has been outlawed.

Very few. In more/most it's just taxable.

>> They also endured 90% drops in value from early peaks to troughs. Bitcoin could have gone to zero at any point if the system had failed. (It still could)

OK, sure, but again not a massive risk if your initial stake was tiny.

And it was a stake rather than an investment - it's not really an investment as you're not investing in a productive endeavour. More like buying and holding an asset.

In the end, either one does or does not own the property. They choose when to buy and when to sell.

From your perspective, isn't it a massive risk not to sell at this all time high value?

If they hold or sell, do they deserve whatever outcome?

> From your perspective, isn't it a massive risk not to sell at this all time high value?

Not really, if you didn't tie up significant proportions of your net worth in the initial buy.

> If they hold or sell, do they deserve whatever outcome?

Deserve is a worryingly moral word to apply there.

My only dispute is that early adopters took a lot of risk. It's not like they sunk their life savings into opening a small business.

They could have been doing something else with their time. Instead they were mining, promoting, and trading this technology. By definition there is an opportunity cost to being an early adopter instead of going with the flow - so indeed they took a risk.

The question was whether it was a "big" risk. Every action, including the decision not to take a particular action, is a non-zero risk.

Does that opportunity cost justify owning a meaningful percentage of all of the coins that will ever exist?

What does "justify" mean here? Are you somehow saying its not fair that early adopters have a lot of coins?

If at some point bitcoin will suck significant portion of saving of whole world then they will own huge share of all of that which seems a bit unfair.

So buy it from them. It's a completely voluntary system that requires no permission to participate, has been from the start.

I assume 'fair' to you would mean taking it from them to re-distribute between everyone else?

> So buy it from them.

You can't do that if they don't sell and they won't sell untill bitcoin stores large portion of world's wealth.

> I assume 'fair' to you would mean taking it from them to re-distribute between everyone else?

I have no idea why would you assume that. Especially if you could achieve same thing just by destroying their bitcoin. No need to re-distribute. Share is the thing that matters not the amount.

On more serious note fair for me is more or less how actual brick and mortar econony distributes things. You make things other find useful, you get share of humanity's wealth in return.

Holding things, bitcoin, gold, real estate, copyright strays for me from 'fair'. I see it as the less fair, the less you contibuted to humanity to acquire those things and the more claim on share of humanity's wealth you have by holding them.

> You can't do that if they don't sell and they won't sell until bitcoin stores large portion of world's wealth.

They do sell though, billions of dollars worth, everyday on several exchanges.

> Especially if you could achieve same thing just by destroying their bitcoin.

So now we're responding with force to a completely voluntary system? Great. And by the way, that is still redistribution, all other assets would go up in value in response.

> On more serious note fair for me is more or less how actual brick and mortar econony distributes things. You make things other find useful, you get share of humanity's wealth in return.

> Holding things, bitcoin, gold, real estate, copyright strays for me from 'fair'. I see it as the less fair, the less you contibuted to humanity to acquire those things and the more claim on share of humanity's wealth you have by holding them.

I agree on copyright, because it's a far different beast with tons of problems, but the others are essentially stores of value that you can get in a voluntary exchange by doing things others find useful.

There is inherited wealth, yes, but I've never found a way that works that solves that birth inequality.

"Since taxes are not voluntary, this creates built-in demand for the fiat money."

Not really.

The real underlying demand for a currency comes from the advantage that everyone gets by using the same currency in a common market.

The 'required for tax' purposes is a side-show.

Does anyone with any financial background appreciate that most businesses in the US want to use a single currency for their US transactions, and definitely not a 'grab bag' various currencies?

Nobody wants that. Nobody.

Also, the requirement to 'pay taxes' in a common currency is not coercive.

As long as there is liquidity in currency, then you can exchange whatever asset you want for USD and pay your taxes then.

Libertarians are still free to use whatever they want in their business dealings. Of course, we all use USD because it's pragmatic and useful.

"Capital controls are an artificial construct of the state"

Western nations do not really have 'capital controls' other than for the purposes of taxation and fraud. And sure, you could say 'taxation' is an 'construct of the state' but it's certainly not 'arbitrary'.

"When the money supply of your currency is not constrained (by gold, or otherwise), then it inevitably inflates, often unpredictably and uncontrollably."

Totally false. Inflation is a target by most central banks. They can make it positive or negative, generally, and target specifically 2% for certain reasons. You can argue against the 2% if you want, but not that managed currencies are inherently 'one thing or another'. They are whatever they are designed to do.

By having a 'perfectly hard currency' - you forgo the risk of having some crazy person doing monetary policy - but worse - you lose the possibility for having monetary policy altogether. How could you possibly not mention this as the most obvious drawback to a strict currency (i.e. no monetary policy)?

Monetary policy is a very powerful instrument for helping the economy along. Without it, it would be impossible to ensure enough liquidity as the market expands. Also, the economy would not be resilient to 'shock' events.

The reason zero economies on planet earth used a fixed-currency regime is because it does not work.

"The libertarian position on wealth inequality is that as long as the distribution of wealth was determined voluntarily"

This position is false, as capitalism itself is game of gaining leverage towards monopoly. Without some degree of redistributive taxation, 90% of the US economy would be in the hands of a small group of people. (And P.S. I'm no communist)

"Bitcoin is such a system: all participation in Bitcoin has been voluntary. "

Again, false.

Bitcoin is not a currency. If anything, BTC has proven how ridiculously bad this 'crypto-currency' idea has been as a currency. By it's very own 'relatively strict' status, it has increased it's value ('deflationary' in your terminology) - and has become useless as a currency.

-----> If we were using Bitcoin as a currency, the economy would be tanking due to a deflationary death-spiral <-----

EDIT: by 'death spiral' I'm referring to a common economic idea. As prices of goods go down, investors tend to hoard cash rather than invest it, as holding currency might be a better investment strategy than spending. Without investment, other parts of the economy slow, furthering the impetus to holding cash. The 'mass deflation' we've seen in BTC is equally as destructive as 'mass inflation' we would see from some really poorly managed gong-show currency.

Put another way: yes, you might like it if your 'new tennis shoes' were 1/2 price next week, and 1/2 that price the week after - hey - cheap tennis shoes! But think about it: has the economy just magically been 100% more productive each week? No. Of course not. So - what's happening is a monetary game that will soon hit your paycheque (i.e. your boss can pay you 1/2 your salary each week because that's your real market value). But worse - because of this drop in prices, your boss will be less likely to expand because his cost of capital equations show him it's smarter to hold the cash.

But it's all moot: Bitcoin is not a currency. It could be used as a currency, but it's not. It's just a purely speculative thing that's going on. People trading numbers for money 'because'. There's no rhyme or reason. There is no 'big government vs. small government' ideology here. There is no 'libertarian' behind BTC currency. It's just a meme with money that's interesting to watch.

> The real underlying demand for a currency comes from the advantage that everyone gets by using the same currency in a common market.

> The 'required for tax' purposes is a side-show.

Why can't it be both? :)

> Totally false. Inflation is a target by most central banks. They can make it positive or negative, generally, and target specifically 2% for certain reasons.

This is a bit questionable. There are good reasons why a slight positive rate of inflation is a good thing, and while you could try to target a negative rate, it would almost certainly be very harmful to the economy.

Basically, people and even many companies have fewer contracts or prices for selling things than for buying things. So when relative prices need to adjust, this adjustment happens more smoothly and faster when prices don't have to decrease in nominal terms (because e.g. an employee whose compensation should go down in real terms will fight very hard against a nominal decrease in their income, but will fight less hard against a broad nominal increase in their outlays).

So you should generally aim to have only very few (if any) items in your basket of goods whose prices are decreasing.

(Economists call this the zero lower bound and focus on salaries, but I'd expect the effect to apply to other prices as well.)

I meant to say that a managed currency does not imply inflation, as the commenter was saying.

I'm saying a managed currency can be whatever you want it to be. I agree targeting deflation would be bad.

Hint: deflation is kind of bad, and we have massive deflation with BTC :)

> Monetary policy is a very powerful instrument for helping the economy along. Without it, it would be impossible to ensure enough liquidity as the market expands. Also, the economy would not be resilient to 'shock' events.

Many countries expressly forbid themselves to use monetary policy to manipulate their economy. Their monetary policy has singular goal: to keep inflation low and stable.

So maybe it's not such a graet tool although tempting.

does libertarianism have any tenets other than "human interactions should be voluntary"?