Libertarianism is an unsustainable political ideology

The goal of libertarianism is maximum individual freedoms. According to libertarians, this is accomplished by a government that does not interfere with individual’s lives. This means there is no regulation of the economy, no laws limiting behavior so long as it doesn’t interfere with others’ lives, and no waging wars that citizens will fight in. This libertarian goal will not last under a libertarian policy. Here’s why.

Capitalism drives the people at the bottom towards socialism.

An advanced economy makes the essentials in life easier. When that happens, people don’t need to work as hard for the “essentials” needed to survive (housing, food). When this happens, there is an evaporative cooling of high value folks as life gets easier.

The world becomes less cut-throat as technology and division of labor increase the standard of living. This happens largely because high value individuals, as valued by the marketplace, are more likely to have fewer children than those that do not spend their reproductive years having children. It is compounded because there is less of a need for high value people because there are fewer hardships – due to the advanced economy that can solve most problems.

When there are fewer people being valued by the economy, they will seek to increase their value through other means. This can mean trying to bring down those that are valued.

A large reason for this is jealousy. So much demand is generated by advertising and marketing. Advertising and marketing target people’s insecurities to create a demand. Then the product is promised as an answer to that insecurity. This is problematic to libertarians for two reasons.

One, people will never find fulfillment in these things promised by companies. It means they will continue to want, and they will likely turn to more things to seek that fulfillment. While this grows the economy, which libertarians argue is good, it doesn’t answer people’s problems. People that cannot afford “the answer” to their insecurities will be jealous of those that can.

Two, most people aren’t wealthy. The majority of people cannot afford the extreme riches that are seen as fulfilling to the insecurities. This means that to reach the largest audiences, companies must cater to the people that cannot reach the highest levels of income and spend. This includes news and media companies. When the majority of people are looking for answers to their own insecurities, news and media companies must empathize with these people and create a solution. One solution is to tell them to work harder. That doesn’t sell as well as attacking the wealthy for not contributing their share to taxes and social benefits. Companies can actually profit by pushing socialist narratives. This is ironic, and it makes sense.

Another issue with libertarian policy is that totalitarianism can be accomplished by private companies. This was demonstrated over the last couple years with the growth of media platforms that then silence and cut funding from content creators that have ideas counter to the ideology of the company.

Just like the US Constitution restricts the power of the government, there must also be checks in place for private companies so they don’t become too powerful over others. There needs to be some regulation to advanced markets. Without this regulation, people will view private businesses as evil, which opens up an opportunity for socialist policies to attack businesses.

This makes socialist political parties appear like the good guys, even though large government is much more likely to turn totalitarian than private companies competing in a free market. There isn’t another option for governments, without going through significant hurdles.

Liberal social policies lead to socialism.

Just like an unrestricted free market leads to socialism, so do the social policies libertarians push for. I will use a couple examples to show this point: open borders and birth control, but this extends to other “social issues” in politics.

Opening borders to low value individuals invites more people that are likely to want socialism. The libertarian argument is that with open borders the economy will have more consumers and producers that can innovate and solve each other’s problems. Few of these immigrants have few skills that are valued in an advanced economy. The rest work for low wages and end up in the same pool as the citizens that are likely to turn socialist.

Birth control allows women to maintain a sexually active lifestyle and stay productive in the workplace. This is great for the financial economy but has negative effects on the happiness of both men and women because they aren’t realizing the promises they were given in grad school and the latest commercials. “Have sex and build your career while you’re young and then settle down when you’re older.”

Problem is, the qualities that make for an attractive man – strong in mind, body, and wallet, are not what make for an attractive female – youth and beauty. Because of that, the sexy man isn’t with options to date the young hottie isn’t going to be as interested in the older career girl.

As women continue to work as hard and as many hours as men without realizing the benefits in the sexual market, they will turn to other means to find their happiness. Since the free market didn’t work out, an obvious alternative is to seek socialist policies that promise equality and freedom. Just like the promises of advertisements and grad school counselors, the promises of socialism will not deliver.

For these reasons, a modern economy needs conservative social policy if the individual happiness is a priority. It should be.

Libertarianism is an unsustainable political ideology for the two reasons mentions. Capitalism, unconstrained, leads to totalitarianism through both monopoly over minds of consumers and from the tendency for individuals at bottom rungs to drift toward a preference for socialist equality. The social policies recommended will also lead to socialism by degrading the strength of individuals that free markets rely on.

The problem with libertarianism is that it puts the financial market as the primary good in the world. This goes against most psychological metrics, which would prioritize individual happiness or contentment, and economic metrics, which prioritizes utility – not just financial growth.

Accelerationism is the primary force driving change in the world today

Accelerationism is the primary force driving change in the world. Never before has change happened as fast as it is currently happening, and that will continue to be the case.

Accelerationism is the change in state. To accelerate is to change velocity. The world is changing its velocity constantly these days. This is made possible by the more advanced, digital technology that emerged in the last couple decades, and manifests in every aspect of our lives.

New technology allows accelerationism. Every new technology ever invented has made other, new technology available – both directly and indirectly. New technology directly enables new technology because tools can be added to existing tools and improved upon. For example, the assembly line was created and then robotics were attached to assembly lines.

More recently, Salesforce created its development platform and now there are thousands of applications on the Salesforce network, some for purchase, others free. These examples show how new technologies do not improve the rate of change in a linear fashion. Where one robotic arm was attached at a time after trial and error, hundreds of apps can be developed and deployed simultaneously.

Platform technology such as Salesforce significantly enable new technology. An assembly line is limited to anyone who has access to the manufacturing floor of the shop in question. Salesforce is available to anyone with an internet connection. In America, almost zero people don’t have technical access available to Salesforce in 2018 (doesn’t mean it’s used by everyone with internet).

It’s the invention of these platform technologies – where other technologies and improvements can be made on top of one technology, that drives the constant change. This started with the invention of the internet. When the internet was turned on, people could shortly after contact multiple people at a time and solve problems from anywhere in the world through email and discussion forums. That was the beginning of what led to Salesforce applications.

These platforms and new technologies also indirectly promote new technology. By eliminating old jobs and removing the need for human labor – which is the goal of technology, new hordes of people are left in need of employment. In an advanced world, lots of that employment is in technology fields. So, the scores of people who would have found employment laboring in a profession before are now picking up technical educations and competing against or creating new technologies (not commenting on the sustainability of this, but it is the current state). These products and services are where the demand is for jobs. Plus, there’s incentives for the creative entrepreneurs through venture capital and public offerings, that offer major cash payouts to companies that succeed.

Accelerationism is the primary force driving change in the world today. This is because:

  • Digital platforms allow people to constantly build and deploy new technology.
  • Jobs are being eliminated by computers doing human work. This allows computers to aid in humans learning. This also allows more humans to be working on other ventures.

Many more economically free cities like Dubai and Shenzhen will come into being in the next 50 years.

Dubai and Shenzhen are economic centers for their geologic regions. These cities are exceptional because they allow a free economy to exist in locations that otherwise rely on government oversight of production, or have until recently.

Dubai is in the United Arab Emirates, and has emerged the largest global economic center in the middle east in the last ten years. Most countries in the middle east have relied on state-run oil companies for most of the economic activity. This oil is traded overseas, which has allowed the middle eastern nations to participate in global trade. The nation, or in many cases, OPEC, the oil-producing nations operating as a unit, were the ones making decisions that impacted the global trade. This is in contrast to the western world, where the entrepreneur, whether the individual or the CEO, is in charge of strategic decisions.

In the Middle East, economic activity was never at the discretion of the individual, but up to the nation that supplied oil to determine which products and services it would allow into its country. The country determined the values which guided the spend and trade that occurred with other nations. For instance, the country could prioritize fruits and vegetables, and limit the citizen’s freedom to indulge in an overseas candy bar. More commonly, these nations chose to trade for arms and military weaponry. The country decided that weapons were more important for all the citizens, rather than each citizen having a say.

China was long-ruled by communist political regimes that put similar constraints on trade. Negotiations on imports and exports were led by the leader of the country, or the minister of trade. This put constraints on the freedom of individuals because they could not choose how to spend the dollars that they made.

Countries operating with free markets allow the free-flowing information and tools across country lines – whether digital or not. When countries such as China or United Arab Emirates puts constraints on individual’s ability to produce, this does two things. It discourages individuals from producing and limits their ability to be productive compared to other countries in the world. Also, those individuals that want to produce and ignore the constraints of the country are encouraged to leave to a country that is willing to accept their ideas and labor. This is bad for the country, as they are not able to receive the benefits that that individual wanted to contribute.

Individuals want to contribute to their country, and their country wants them to contribute. By participating in a free economy, an individual is able to improve the situation for himself and his local community. Through participating in a local economy, not only does an individual spend money locally and trade for local goods, but he also pays taxes, creates products or carries out services that are, necessarily, valued by the local community (he wouldn’t get paid otherwise), and innovate. An individual must be able to try new ideas. He must be able to fail, if ever the country will innovate. The ideas that work are the ideas that are voted on by people willing to spend money to see them scale.

These days, these constraints are being destroyed by technology and the competition of other countries. Just like companies compete for the sale of products and services, the countries that house those companies compete for labor and business that produce tax revenue so the country can fund its projects. As free economies prove to be more productive and more innovative, those countries that choose not to participate in the free economy are left behind.

Further, economic constraints are being destroyed by technology. Social media has allowed people to communicate globally, instantly. Global marketplaces and shipping companies allow for people to purchase and receive goods anywhere in the world. Technology companies that depend on digital skills can recruit talent globally, and those skills can be put to work in any location with internet access. There’s internet access in every country.

These skills can be learned online, in many cases for free, from any location with internet access. As more intelligent individuals are given access to the internet and the tools that are now a part of it, more individuals will have access to these markets, and more individuals will have the ability to produce and contribute to the global, and their local, economy. Central hubs for innovation – London, New York, Silicon Valley, are no longer gatekeepers for talent and resources. The same resources can be found anywhere in the world, and talent can be encouraged to stay in those economies outside of the original hubs.

As more educated individuals have access to this global economy, more people will be able to participate in the economy. Because they no longer need to fly to New York or San Jose to get the job that enables them to contribute, and because the country they live in will be incentivized to provide them access to the global economy, more economically free cities will manifest around the globe.

The growth of cities will happen internationally – such as Shenzhen in China and Dubai in the UAE, and this will happen nationally. More cities will emerge within nations as this talent pool grows and resource constraints of hub cities become less important. In the United States, more cities will become internationally competitive. Atlanta, Denver, and Austin are three examples of cities that claim to be tech centers – and rightly so.

This growth will only be sped up when access to capital becomes available to individuals outside of hub cities. In the United States, many startup companies are funded by venture capital firms. The majority of these are located and prefer funding in Silicon Valley. That is one more hurdle that will be overcome through the increase in talent outside of “The Valley” and with the decentralization of funding – through technologies such as cryptocurrency. Decentralization will allow entrepreneurs to raise funding more easily through their own marketing efforts which can be targeted towards financial institutions or individuals looking to invest.

In summary, more economically free cities will come into being in the next 50 years. This will happen because:

  • Economic constraints are being destroyed by technology, where people can work from anywhere and make money from anyone.
  • Central hubs (New York and London) will be less important because of the connectivity of people, and more educated individuals that will have access to their local economies.
  • Governments are incentivized to reduce constraints to maximize long-term growth of local markets.

Attempts at creating ‘true socialism’ have killed more than 100 million people.

True socialism has killed more than 100 million people. This happens through the necessary actions that are taken to institute a collective economy that would reap the “benefits” that the collective set out to accomplish.

Socialism has good intentions. The goals have always been reasonable. Stalin wanted to eliminate the economic inequality between the upper and lower classes. Hitler wanted to create a nation of strength in military and economic production. Pol Pot wanted to defend against nationalism, another form of totalitarianism. Equality, fighting nationalism, and military strength are all good things – especially in times of war and uncertainty. It was by making these values visible that these leaders were able to organize political parties, which led to the totalitarian ends.

The problem isn’t in setting these goals, it’s in the execution. The means to accomplish these (otherwise noble) ends are what leads to death and suffering. The goals are vague, and the means to accomplish these goals are even more vague. When a political system that is fueled by people that believe in these values, and has the support of the masses to carry out these values, which they believe are in their best interest, it gains the power to accomplish these goals by any means necessary. And the means override individual values, necessarily. Trading one authoritarian policy for another still results in totalitarianism, which inevitably leads to death. Usually, lots of death.

China’s Mao wanted to create a socialist ideal, one that was by-the-book Marxist. To carry this out, he demanded food and resources from the workers. When production slowed down, and resources were gathered without payment, tens of millions of people starved to death. Millions died in similar fashion in North Korea and the Soviet Union. The Great Chinese Famine that occurred under Mao starved over 20 million people to death. Many millions died of starvation in Soviet Russia, Cambodia, and many others instances where socialism was carried out (Cambodia, Korea).

There are three reasons starvation is common in socialist states. The first is that resources are seized by the state. So, those dependent on their own produce are often squeezed thin. Production slows to almost nothing when the incentives of distributed labor are removed from the economy. So much less food is produced. Last, illness takes over, which is harder to defend against without proper nutrition. This leads to outbreaks in disease and premature birth.

The murder of “the enemy” is often killed by socialist regimes. The Bolsheviks killed anyone deemed an “enemy of the people”. Bolshevik leaders determined there were more than one million of these enemies. Mao’s China killed off similar numbers of dissidents. This seems almost reasonable in modern days. If someone believes in hateful ideology, doesn’t that make them hateful, and shouldn’t we do something about that? We should debate their ideas and prevent their spread. We should not force individuals to believe in one doctrine over another. But it is exactly this mindset that leads to the killing off of civilians.

The problem with this is that someone needs to decide who is an enemy and who is not. When a political party determines who is an enemy, then there is lots of room for interpretation and the allowance of bias to come in. For instance, it can be easy to point to a political opponent and say that he is one of the “enemies of the people” instead of competing against him in a fair campaign. This leads to the oppression of individuals, as they are no longer free to carry any (however natural) ideas in their own head and to share and challenge those ideas. You must get in line or die.

Hitler gathered support by promising a booming economy and a strong national image. This was enough to rally his nation during tough economic times that followed the loss of World War I. During the course of his rise to power, he cast goals that the Germans could rally behind. Winning the war was a huge motivator. To rise up from losing the first war to become a global player is a hell of a promise. Even better – blame others instead of the Germans for losing the war and for the tough times that followed (see: Jews during World War II).

This is a recurring theme in all dictatorships and tyrannical societies – they gained the favor of the majority, or at least the loud minority, before turning “evil”. How could people support a system that has led to such destruction? Again, it’s the promises of good things that lead to the destructive means. When equality, national strength, or the suppression of an idea (e.g. nationalism) are prioritized by a political movement, it’s easy to see how destructive policies can result. It’s easy to see because it has happened multiple times and because, theoretically, the means to institute a socialist state lead to oppression and often death.

In summary, the attempts to create true socialism have killed more than 100 million people through:

  • The removal of people that disagree with the values of the collective.
  • War, which is often a prioritized value that the collective must then value.
  • Death by food shortages, rioting, and lacking health care.

Free markets are the only form of democratic representation that is viable over the long-term.

The concept of the free market and emerged division of labor allows an individual to put his money, the results of his labor, where that individual chooses. Through that choice of investment, the individual gets to prioritize the goods and services that he finds most valuable. By choosing to invest in services he finds most valuable, he, in a significant way, votes for the continued availability of those services.

Even if the values, and from those values resulting the products and services, that an individual aspires to are not represented in a free market, the individual has the option of creating those products and services that can be of value to him. If the services are of value to others, then those can be exchanged in a free market system. They can be shared or traded for profit. If they are not wanted by other individuals, then that individual can create his own and seek his own fulfillment, but by not being recognized as important by others, he may need to sacrifice the potential profits that can be acquired by participating in a trade that is more valued by others. He may need to live a life of poverty in order to live out those values which are most important to that individual.

With free markets, the values of any given individual are not guaranteed to exist in an economy. That individual can build them and bring them into the world. Without free markets, the values of any given individual are not guaranteed to ever manifest in the economy. When the individual’s interests are not manifested in the economy, there is no way to guarantee he can spend to acquire the services that individual finds most valuable.

Totalitarian systems necessarily rule out the option for each individual’s values to be represented in the economy. Totalitarian systems create values that represent the values of the collective. The system is responsible for creating the values for every individual that is a part of the economy, instead of each individual being allowed to have his own values which can then be pursued by that individual.

Collectivist economics necessarily leads to this totalitarianism. There is no way to represent the interests of every individual, because the values are prescribed from the central organization which creates the values and prioritizes the goods and services that will be produced.

The goal of a collectivist economy is to manifest the wants of the individuals in control. These may represent the majority, and they may represent a small group of idealists. Those are prioritized over the wants and wishes of each individual. The wants and wishes of the individuals with different values have to wait until the other goals are accomplished by the collective.

If universal healthcare is desired by the majority, and resources and capital are spent to make universal health accessible, then the individual that values art will have to wait until universal health is accessible to everyone, and he will have to work towards universal healthcare. Only when that is accomplished will the collective then be able to get to work on other values. That could be art, or it could be housing and transportation infrastructure. No one individual gets to decide what he can work on.

The free market allows each individual to live out his own values, and to vote on what matters to him. A man can be an artist and risk not making money while he does what he loves. Another can choose to buy art. Another can buy health services. It is the free market that allows this free decision making.

In summary, free markets are the only viable form of long-term democratic representation for the following reasons:

  • Totalitarianism necessarily rules out democratic representation.
  • Collectivist economics necessarily leads to totalitarianism.
  • Free markets put individual investment where people want.

All humans have an inherent drive towards violence and dominance

All humans have an inherent drive towards violence and dominance. Like the positive attributes in humanity, some of this is biological, some of this is because of societal pressures.

We evolved to maximize two outcomes – our own survival and replication. In order to maximize this, we evolved to cooperate socially in order to build up a tribe – a community of people with similar interests that add to the collective strength and efficiencies of the group.

We also evolved to be competitive. We are competitive because we get energized by driving toward something – even if that thing is at the expense of others, and because we are rewarded for winning in competition. Being engaged in a task comes from this drive – this want to succeed. Being engaged in a task focuses the mind. Focus allows us to be present in the moment, which can be used to be productive and accomplish or to have fun.

We are also competitive because we are rewarded for winning in competition. This applies across all games – all opportunities to be competitive, and it applies interpersonally as well as socially. There are winners and losers in life. Some people live longer than others, one guy marries and has children with the hot chick, and one person’s company gets funded and goes on to make billions of dollars. This happens at the expense of others. One guy settles for a woman he sees as less attractive. Another dies early. Employees at one startup work hard for years but get crushed when they don’t get additional funds while a competitor does.

There are psychological rewards for success across any of these games. By “winning” we are given the satisfaction of a job well done. We reap fruits of the hard effort we put in. Accomplishment is a big motivator. It gives us meaning, and reinforces that we are valued by society when we do a good job. This allows to have confidence in what we do, which manifests in mental strength and more confident actions and decision making in the future. This is why positive reinforcement has been proven to be much more effective than negative reinforcement in order to get results.

Likewise, social rewards come in many forms. Socially, we can get public recognition for a job well done – such as our name in the newspaper, a bonus, or a pat on the back. In the sexual market, we are rewarded for being more attractive. If we are best able to communicate our ability to appeal to a woman’s want to survive and replicate, then we can be given access to sexual favors from that woman (or women). It is in this competition that we seek to be better than others. Humans will out-work and out-charm other humans at the expense of other humans.

Another aspect of competition is the jealousy and greed that emerges as a result. When people achieve and reap the rewards society has to offer, we look at them with contempt. It takes a wise man to be unfettered by the success of others. Jealousy is a very natural feeling. Jealousy emerges when we are not being rewarded by society at the rate of others. We become resentful because they pose a threat to our ability to appeal to the other sex, to money and resources, or the status of being a leader in the in-group.

Similar, greed is the obsession of the accumulation of things. This usually comes at the expense of others too. If someone controls wealth and power, they will be rewarded with sex, status, and control over others. These things feel good when they are experienced, and they reward with more material goods, which also feels good. Greed is a reinforcing loop that leads to more greed, which comes at the expense of others.

While jealousy and greed can motivate an individual to build the skills and knowledge necessary to climb a dominance hierarchy to achieve the status and wealth he set out to realize, there are downsides these traits. Jealousy and greed make us wanting of more. They reinforce that we are not good enough, or don’t have enough things, and in doing so make us want. When we want, we are necessarily not content with what we currently have.

Wars and acts of terror happen for these reasons. We feel threatened by another group, or we are greedy for resources that other people have. So, we seek destruction and dominance in order to satisfy our cravings, which can surface at an individual or a societal level.

When we aren’t content with what we currently have, we have two options. We can acquire more (status, things, etc). This is more likely to be chosen by people that are greedy and jealous, because they have been rewarded for their greed and jealousy in the past. The other option is to stop wanting. This requires psychologically detaching ourselves from the wants and needs of a given competition. Most of these competitions are externally pushed onto us. We can reject them, and learn to be happy with what we have.

Finally, human beings are inherently violent because we despise the routine. We hate being bored, and we actively seek things to interrupt what is normal. We get drunk after a good day (or bad day). We change sex positions into something more risqué. We travel somewhere we’ve never been.

If we were given a “perfect society”, where everyone was happy and received what they want and were also rewarded for their efforts, it would not take long for people to destroy the whole system. We would bring the perfect system to ashes because it’s boring. We crave adventure. We crave the disorder that keeps us interested and motivated to learn how to overcome that disorder – to create order out of chaos.

In summary, all humans have an inherent drive towards violence and dominance because:

  • We are competitive and compete for status and sexual favor.
  • We are jealous, manipulative, and greedy.
  • We despise the routine.

All humans have an inherent drive towards being loving and caring.

All humans have an inherent drive towards being loving and caring. We have a natural want to get along with other humans and to love others, and we are rewarded psychologically and socially when we do this. It makes us feel good when other people feel good, we have greater access to good things like sex, and we can be rewarded in business with more money.

Our genes evolved with distinct goals in mind. These goals shaped the psychology of humans, which manifests in our behavior. These are our primal drivers in life. There are two genetic drivers in life – survive and replicate. Genes, which do not contain the capacity for conscious thought, have a want to survive as long as they can, and to reproduce to ensure the continuity of that gene for generations. As genes work together to build a basic, non-thinking animal, those goals makeup the existence of the species. Even as consciousness develops through the growing brain, the ancient, animalistic part of our brains still have those desires hard-coded into our wiring.

All humans have a primal desire to survive and replicate. To survive means to not die. Our genes want to live as long as possible, and so do humans. We are afraid of death, even though it is natural and inevitable. We worry about the future, we have insecurities, and we get nervous because of the primal want to survive and not die.

A lot of this is biological. We evolved to get along with others. It is in our best interest for survival to be liked by others. To be liked by others is to not be excluded from the group. To be excluded means to have a smaller tribe, and to have a smaller tribe – especially in caveman times, meant to be exposed to more risks such as war by other (larger) tribes, fewer access to resources, and attacks by saber tooth tigers.

We want to replicate. To replicate, we need to have sex and multiply our genes through the production of offspring. To do this, men must have sex with a woman and she must keep his seed. The act is simple. If a man meets a girl in a bar and gets her drunk and has sex with her, his work is done. He is partly incentivized, psychologically, to do that. That’s why the act feels good. However, is also disincentivized from that have sex and never see her again behavior.

If a man leaves the woman he impregnates, he faces consequences from the law through child support payments and alimony. Even if those consequences weren’t enforced by the law, he would still face ostracization from his tribe – from his local community. To leave the woman with the responsibility is to be dishonorable on both an individual level, and on a communal level. He will not be trusted in the community and, from that, unable to participate in the local economy, unable to date or have sex with other women, and unable to maintain relationships with men. In this way, people are self-policing. One person can inflict harm, but he will be ostracized from his community and will have to establish himself somewhere else. It’s much easier and more beneficial to be a good person – and humans tend to like doing the easiest thing.

We enjoy when others are happy. Not only does companionship increase the strength of our local tribe in times of war, but we actually get a positive hormonal kick when we recognize that someone else is happy. A rising tide lifts all boats. We are rewarded, chemically, for making others feel good or, simply, by others feeling good. But, when others aren’t feeling good, we are rewarded for showing sympathy and care in order to change their mood and get them feeling good again.

This is why we have fun when we go to bars and parks to interact in a positive way with others. We enjoy when others are positive and happy, so we go to places that encourage that behavior. It’s “fun” to go to these places and see and be a part of people laughing, dancing, and sharing in common experience. Many times, the shared, common experience is reflecting on a work day where everyone hates their boss or traffic or the local football team’s rival that won the game on Sunday and beat the point spread. Even when the common experience is negative, it still brings people together to relate to each other and show sympathy for the common situation. We call it “happy hour” even when we say nothing happy at all.

Humans are rewarded in the economy when we get along and consider the care of others. This manifests in a couple ways. One, when we are trusted by others, others are more likely to do business with us and transact their goods and services for our own. In caveman days, that could be the initial segregation of duties. I’ll kill a bear for food, you build me a place to live. This economy only works if people trust each other. The economy in 2018 is built on trust also, it’s just less in-your-face. But we don’t return to businesses that we don’t trust. We don’t visit businesses with one star on Yelp, and we don’t visit businesses our best friend said stinks, because we don’t trust them.

The second economic incentive to love and care for others is that if we understand and have empathy for the wants and needs of others, then we can provide products or services to fulfill those wants and needs. We will be rewarded in the market for having empathy and the creativity to solve problems that others have. If many people share that problem, you can turn a profit. Even if only one person has the problem that you were able to solve, you did a good thing.

In summary, all humans have an inherent drive towards being loving and caring. This is because:

  • It is in our survival best interest because a tribe will defend us.
  • We feel good, physically, when others are happy.
  • We can be trusted in business transaction.

 

BITCOIN PROVES THAT THE “GLASS CEILING” KEEPING WOMEN DOWN IS A MYTH

This was originally posted at Return of Kings here: (link to article).

Bitcoin is further evidence that the “glass ceiling,” the idea that women are kept from reaching the ranks in corporations and in financial success because of a nebulous “patriarchy,” is nonsense.

Economists have disproved the glass ceiling on more than one occasion in the past, so the more well-read will not be shocked by this. Yet, the existence of the glass ceiling has remained a major talking point for feminists. The silence of feminists during the rise of Bitcoin has been deafening.

Bitcoin is an interesting case study because it is modern and doesn’t have the excuses that you hear when the glass ceiling argument breaks out. There is no Bitcoin establishment or “old boys’ club,” because Bitcoin has no establishment. Bitcoin is hardly established, and there is no one central authority.

Feminists claim that “institutions have always had biases” and “it’s a man’s game,” but Bitcoin didn’t come with any biases. It didn’t come with anything. It was nothing ten years ago, and its meteoric growth is well-known.

Bitcoin was created in 2009, a time where women had established themselves in various industries, most notably tech (see: Meg Whitman, Sheryl Sandberg). Nine years later, only three percent (at most) of Bitcoin use (suggested through Bitcoin community engagement) is by women.

Is this the patriarchy keeping women from investing? No. There is nothing that stops women from investing in Bitcoin. Women don’t even need to go to banks to introduce an intermediary which could discriminate against them.

So why aren’t more women investing in Bitcoin? There are a number of reasons for this.

1. Bitcoin is Boring

There are no emotions involved in cryptocurrency investing. Women are more likely to get involved in areas that stir their emotions, from the social sciences to humanitarian work to political rallies.

Bitcoin is mathematical. It was created with a white paper and some computer programming. Since more women take up studies in the arts or humanities than math, it is more difficult to understand the concept and takes more work.

Also, because women prefer soft subjects to hard ones, women end up in jobs related to the arts and humanities versus the hard sciences. They will be more likely surrounded by men and mostly women that also did not study math and computer science and will not be interested in—or understand—Bitcoin.

In addition, Bitcoin isn’t tangible. You can’t feel it in your hands, so you cannot wave it around to boost or lower your status without hopping on a male-centric Reddit page (HODL!!). This reduces the emotional connection to it because there is no physical thing to attach a feeling to. Where money can be a sign of prosperity or options, the numbers in a bit wallet are less tangible.

2. There Is A Lot Of Risk

Women generally value security and strength, which we have seen in relationship dynamics and the number of careers chosen as opposed to entrepreneurs. Men are more willing to take chances.

One of Bitcoin’s tenets is that it is less risky than fiat dollars because it is not subject to inflation and to crumbling governments, so it should be more stable. However, Bitcoin is still young and has a wildly fluctuating value. It is this perceived value that people see as risky, not the idea. It is these wild fluctuations in value that appeal to men.

Bitcoin is also a long-term investment. Bitcoin believers believe the cryptocurrency will be more durable than fiat and will be a superior currency. Women are much more likely to spend and distribute wealth than to build it through investing.

3. Bitcoin Is Competitive

Men eat what we kill. We evolved to eat the animals we hunted, and we still do that in the modern economy. In a tribal setting, the man that hunted the most for his tribe was rewarded with more power and more women to bang. We evolved to be competitive and to fight for the top spot.

These days, men are more likely to participate in sports and more likely to try new things to get ahead (see here). Bitcoin is competitive with other cryptocurrencies as people (men) race to market and grow their currency of choice. Bitcoin is also competitive as a store of wealth. The more men own, the more men can use our primal brains to associate with power and sex.

These are the reasons why only three percent of Bitcoin users—a completely decentralized, open world without bias—are women. These are the same reasons that men make more money than women in the workplace. It isn’t the patriarchy. It’s the evolutionary and behavioral differences in men and women that decide the numbers.

Men are competitive, find freedom in long-term wealth, and are more excited about new ideas and a new, selfish way to increase wealth. At least, more than women.