[p2p-research] The difference between anarchism and libertarianism

[Smári McCarthy]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

 Sorry for the late reply.

Stefan Merten wrote:
>> I have frequently been asked what the difference is between
>> libertarianism and anarchism, in light of the fact that anarchists have
>> adopted the moral that libertarians have claimed ownership of, that
>> individual freedom is only limited by the equal freedom of others.
> 
> I agree with your description. But I expected that you describe an
> anarchist alternative to libertarians instead of changing to their
> side.

The anarchist side is thoroughly documented from the angle of property
rights, whereas the libertarian stance takes property mostly as a given
and indulges itself only in discussion about the relative merits of
various forms of property. Thus my elaboration in that direction rather
than the other.

>> In light of recent events it is dilligent to ask of currency: is it
>> scarce? Yes. Is it rival? Yes. Need this be the case?
>>
>> This last question is important not least because it is so rarely asked.
>> The monetary system has been constructed around the belief that all
>> things are scarce and that all things are rival.
> 
> Well, I'd go one step further: Money *encodes* scarcity (where
> scarcity means a man-made limitation). If you want to end up at
> commons (i.e. absense of scarcity) you have simply no more use for
> money.

Your mistake here is that you confuse commons with abundance, which is
something I previously thought not to be possible, but it is exactly for
this reason that I urge people to consider the difference between the
abundance/scarcity axis and the rivalry/sociality axis.

Many commons are scarce, in the sense that with sensible use they may
yet be depleted. Further, a multitude of things are abundant but do not
exist in the commons, for example ideas, which have been appropriated
and commoditised by them who we now call owners.

>> Because of this, the
>> monetary system is incapable of properly estimating the value of things
>> that are abundant or social.
> 
> Yes. If it encodes scarcity it can not encode non-scarcity.

Again, and this has been discussed before at length and was very aptly
summarized by Kevin Carson recently on the p2p foundation blog, there
exist many forms of money that do not assume scarcity. Mutual credit is
a very fine example.

The assumption of scarcity is built into our current monetary system.

>> At some point the lords realized that these
>> commons were quite valuable, and suddenly realized that which has come
>> to be known as the tragedy of the commons.
> 
> Well, the "tragedy" of the commons is of course capitalist propaganda.
> This is pretty obvious. It was not a tragedy but the appropriation at
> the beginning of an era.

I like the way you put this. It's not entirely accurate, historically,
but I agree that the tragedy of the commons was capitalist propaganda.
The concept is itself pure bullshit, born out of rampant unchecked
Malthusianism.

>> Usury, or interest, creates an interesting situation in the monetary
>> system.
> 
> Here your analysis starts to get wrong. Interest does not create a
> situation in the monetary system but is created by a monetary system.

On the contrary. As Michel pointed out in his previous reply to this,
usury is by no means the norm. See my post to the Oekonux mailing list
on the 6. may 2009 for a theological overview of usury and its many bans
through time. See also how interest is not assumed in many currencies,
specifically LETS systems and many other alternative currencies. (In
fact, LETS systems have the absence of usury as a rule.

What you probably mean is that usury comes into effect in monetary
systems because money lenders want increase or return on their loans,
and the competition isn't good enough to eliminate it. But the truth is
that state and/or central bank interference with the monetary system and
their monopoly over given monetary systems forces banks and other
lenders to charge increase.

The means of production of money are in the hands of centralized
monopolies. If money could be produced by all, scarcity would not be
assumed, and market dynamics would make usury unreasonable.

>> Simple: We stop assuming that everything is scarce, and that all things
>> are rival.
> 
> But then: What do we need money for at all?

Because money does not encode scarcity, it encodes trust, and by way of
that, it encodes merit.

> 
>> First, we stop accepting centralization of the means of production, and
>> allow everybody to create credit, the value of which is determined by
>> their merit.
> 
> And merit is of course scarce. So you are introducing a new scarcity
> in the attempt to remove scarcity. This makes no sense. But it
> reflects how much your thinking is still bound to a scarcity based
> system. I wholeheartedly suggest that you just look at peer
> production. Scarcity is no part of peer production. And thus money is
> not missing.

Merit is not scarce. It is finite, meaning that there is a limited
amount of it available, but it is not scarce in the sense that
reasonable use of merit will not deplete it. Further, merit is not
rival, so many people can make use of the same merit simultaneously
without causing deadlocks. Because of this, the dynamics of merit are
very much different from the dynamics of currencies defined completely
by central bank estimates of monetary value, or by market adaptations to
that value system.

> 
>> By using computers we can make this fast, simple and safe.
> 
> By using computers you move the authorities into the machine. Code is
> law - already forgotten? You can not remove authorities by moving them
> into a computer program.

I am aware with Lawrence Lessig's statement to that affect. Are you
familiar with my reversal of it?

    Law is code

Seen from a software engineering perspective, the legal system is little
more than a piece of software that defines rules and heuristics that
determine the acceptable operational parameters of society. It is
self-modifying code in that it adapts on runtime to the output of the
society.

We're not removing authority by putting it into a computer program.
Rather, we're acknowledging the existence of authority and the
structures that enforce it, and using computer technology as a modest
means of leveling out the playing field by using advanced mathematics to
give everybody the means of production of money. I personally wish I
could see an easy way to do it without computers, but unless we can
teach everybody to calculate RSA in their head, I can't.

>>  œôòüAbundant cheap credit would drastically alter the balance of power
>> between capital and labor, and returns on labor would replace returns on
>> capital as the dominant form of economic activity.œôòý - Kevin Carson,
>> Mutualist Political Economy
> 
> What I never understood: When I can create as much money as I want -
> which above is already impossible by the merit thing - for what do I
> need money then at all?
> 
> Money is either scarce or it makes no sense. It follows that if you
> want to overcome scarcity money makes no sense.

Again, wrong. Money encodes value, trust or merit. When I pay you for a
good, you are accepting that there is a high chance that you will be
able to use that payment's implicit trust statement to procure other
goods. This has NOTHING to do with scarcity.

> 
>> With
>> strong encryption these statements will be nigh impossible to forge.
> 
> You are moving the policemen into the computer. Probably you also like
> DRM methods - they are doing the same.

How the hell do you manage to equate strong encryption with DRM? That is
the most absurd thing I have heard, and it's also borderline offensive.

First off, strong encryption eliminates the need for "policemen" by
providing everybody with a method of ensuring their privacy and proving
their identity. Notice how this e-mail will be digitally signed with my
PGP key when I send it; this is a mathematically strong way of helping
you be able to trust that the message is from me. There is no policing
involved, just a piece of smart mathematics coupled up with a p2p trust
model.

DRM methods on the other hand aim to prevent the copying or otherwise
realistic use of digital information, which is both impossible and
stupid. This has nothing to do with trust models: with DRM you have to
supply the user of the DRMed technology with both the product and the
key to unlock it, and then somehow make it impossible to use the key
outside of a certain context, which of course is impossible to enforce.

>> Property is weaker now than often before, as it goes against the
>> morality of those who have nothing.
> 
> I'm sorry, but morality was always the same largely. So there is no
> change here.

I agree, but there are way more people who have nothing now than there
were a couple of years ago.

>> The monetary system is weak now, because it was designed around
>> assumptions that no longer apply.
> 
> Well, when I look at the rate with which monetary systems are proposed
> I can not really see that the monetary system is weak. In the
> contrary: At the point in history where money really becomes
> superfluos people are so shocked by this vision that they do
> *everything* to save their old certainties. Sorry, but this is too
> conservative for me.

Please understand that "monetary systems" - plural, no article - is
different from "the monetary system" - singular, definite article.

When we say "the monetary system" we are referring to the monetary
system that is currently being used throughout the world, which is a
fiat credit model with centralized credit authority, explicit usury and
implicit geographical bindings (in some cases more explicit than others).

>> Anarchism is the future: freedom for all to live in
>> equality and cooperation.
> 
> No. Anarchism is a concept related to capitalism. For instance
> equality is a fundamental value in capitalist societies. Equality is a
> concept to deal with scarcity and limitations. The future is peer
> production. Equality will simply be no topic any more in peer
> production.

Anarchism is related to capitalism in the way a kiwi is related to a
range rover. Sure, they're both political models, but that's where the
similarity ends.

Capitalism relies on property, and property generates inequality, as
does communism - with most implementations of communism being nothing
more than state capitalism. As Eben Moglen said anecdotally during a
talk yesterday at the University of Iceland: "Under capitalism, man
exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around." (there's a
partial audio recording at http://notendur.hi.is/~annaj/audio/ btw)

Further, you claimed to be familiar with anarchism. Why then do you not
understand that anarchism is the political model for peer production,
and what we're dealing with is merely a technological phenotype?

> I can only appeal to all of you that you open your eyes and really
> *watch* these things which happen all around us. And open you mind and
> overcome this outdated thinking in money / scarcity categories.

"If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out." -- Tim Minchin.

We're watching. Trust me, we are.

  - Smári
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAko74z0ACgkQ9cJSn8kDvvGgzgCgmLFVq1dVKn+j63qvWA8IKvM9
aI0AoNjmk2NmScrrzLIPWxGu9NJrMfbR
=dU/r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----