Gold and silver are Real Money. Bitcoin and other blockchain currencies are not. From Antonius Aquinas at theburningplatform.com:
It is altogether fitting that crypto currencies, in particular Bitcoin, have witnessed a meteoric rise in this illusionary age. Not only has their monetary value gone to dizzying heights, but they are now being touted as the destroyer of the current, crumbling monetary order and the next paradigm upon which a new money and banking system will emerge.
In an era where sacrifice, hard work, loyalty, ingenuity, tradition, and independent thought are considered anathemas, while affirmative action, sloth, effeminacy, office seeking, and something-for-nothing schemes are endemic in every walk of life, it is not surprising that non-tangible, computer-generated currencies would become a “natural” feature of such a world.
While it has always been a haven for charlatans, traitors, cheats, thieves, liars, and serial adulterers, contemporary political life has become even more of a sham. The most glaring example of politics’ utter corruption can be seen in the recent departed chief executive officer of the US. Unless one abandons all critical thinking, Obummer was unqualified to be president because of the obvious fact that he was not born on American soil. Not only did this disqualify him, but his educational and professional backgrounds have not been verified. Neither his collegiate records nor his supposed teaching career at the University of Chicago Law School have ever been exposed to public scrutiny. From the few utterances he has made about his supposed specialty – constitutional law – it appears that he has only a rudimentary knowledge of the subject.
Cultural life has descended to the basest of levels and has abandoned nearly all of Western Civilization’s glorious achievements. Consider music. The dominant form of what passes as music today is not the works of the great maestros of the past – Bach, Mozart, Beethoven – but instead, noise in the form of rock, hip hop, rap, grunge, or whatever the latest degenerate trend is in vogue.
To continue reading: Bitcoin in an Illusionary Age
STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC 
Individual awareness and opinion, together with the judgement upon which said opinion is presumed to be based, precipitates values. These in turn precipitate whatever action(s) might be taken in response, to gain or keep them. To the extent such judgement is in accord with the facts of reality, the action taken in response will then be confirmed or refuted as “wise.”
When viewed not individually, but collectively, such actions constitute a market – THE market, for ANY presumed value. The market for money is no different.
I generally agree with the article’s view of crypto-currencies. It served to remind me of a common mistake made by many advocates of political freedom.
Such advocates correctly identify the injustice and consequences that flow therefrom, that the absence of freedom precipitates, and then, embrace a “collective” response to it. In error, they elevate said response to where it becomes THE solution, as opposed to it being but a contextual solution – one existing because of the context in which the thought-to-be solution deals with temporal facts. Temporal because of the temporary absence of what would otherwise be “the natural order of things” that would exist in freedom’s dominance.
The “black market” is a perfect illustration of this phenomenon. It is a collective response to a temporary absence of “the natural order of things.” A return to the “natural” from the temporary “unnatural,” would immediately end said market.
Gold and silver became, and have remained, what they are because of individual awareness, opinion, and judgment – the actions taken by billions of individuals over time. Just as importantly, the actions taken by others in response, is equally relevant. The former group acting in concert with their freedom to do so, the latter seeking to impose consequences arising from freedom’s absence.
Gold and/or silver in one’s possession need no other values in one’s possession to be recognized and accepted as an “intrinsic” (contextually) value – specifically, as a stand-alone medium of exchange. Crypto-currencies require the existence and “certainty” of a profound technological infrastructure.
Should I have the freedom to exercise my opinion, judgment, and remain free to pursue my values in response, I know which of the two I will use to best secure and protect the time and effort that constitutes the term of my life.
During freedom’s hiatus I may be forced to act differently, but upon its return, I will once again demonstrate through said opinion, judgment, and actions, why Aristotle’s insights – of now over two-thousand years, remain as they have.
LikeLike
Crypto-currencies require the existence and “certainty” of a profound technological infrastructure.
True enough, but so does any manner of living above 18 hours-a-day subsistence agriculture. For there to be even the faintest prospect of averting 1984-world by any means short of rebuilding out of total collapse à la Atlas Shrugged, elimination of the State monopoly on money provision will be required. Whatever its present deficiencies vis-à-vis ‘real money’, Bitcoin – or, more likely, some future development / refinement of crypto-currency technology (definitely to include linkage to / backing by ‘real money’) – strikes me as the only possibly feasible way to accomplish this.
LikeLike
IKDR:
Contextually, you are correct. However, requiring but one seems far more satisfactorily manageable than do “two.” The one you reference is universal and, at all times, a “given.” The second one is not.
I would not argue with you that replacing paper notes with something more secure, efficient, and convenient, always remains possible/preferable. The “lynch-pin” of such a replacement however, must never become severed from that which paper has itself become severed.
To paraphrase Churchill, it is certain that should Orwell’s terrible fear/vision arrive, it will do so on the gleaming wings of technology.
Dave
LikeLike
Graf 1: Maybe I’m just slow, but I’m really having trouble figuring out what you mean here.
Graf 2: My point about crypto-currency is not that it is more efficient or convenient than existing proxies for ‘real money’ (it is arguably less so, though it does have definite advantages WRT security) but that it is a means to eliminate the State monopoly on money provision. As for . . . must never become severed . . . in the absence of State monopoly fostered corruption, the market forces you correctly describe would keep currencies, crypto and otherwise (i.e. proxies for ‘real money’) honest.
Graf 3: Orwell’s terrible fear/vision has nothing to do with technology as such and everything to do with . . . requiring but one seems far more satisfactorily manageable . . . If I have misinterpreted what you mean by requiring (i.e. as State mandated) please forgive me. However, the point WRT Orwell still stands.
. . . a common mistake made by many advocates of political freedom.
A much more common and far, far more damaging mistake is failure to grasp that State monopoly control of money provision greatly enables State control of everything else.
LikeLike
IKDR:
Before I respond I think it relevant to state that, after having read numerous posts by you on a number of different subjects, you and I likely have far, far, more values in common than not.
My point on “two” vs your contention; “but so does any manner of living above 18 hours-a-day subsistence agriculture,” was perhaps, poorly made. I was attempting to demonstrate the value that “simpler” is better. Why choose a medium of exchange any more complex than it might need be? Your answer simply proves my point. Because you acknowledge that in the face of an absence of freedom, it becomes of potentially MUCH greater value that it be private!
I am not arguing against the concept of crypto-currencies, I was making the point that they have arisen in response to an absence of freedom. Restore said freedom, part of which would be a market for what constitutes the “best” money, and said version may earn a place – if not a dominant one. Though I doubt that to be the case, I have been wrong before.
In any event, barring the replacement of my potential ignorance with respect to my judgment of Aristotle’s case for what constitutes the necessary attributes of money, whatever I might use, it will be based upon what the market values as a “medium of final resort.”
You and I both understand Orwell, his fear/vision, and the role technology might play in an all-controlling State. My paraphrasing of Churchill’s quote was just Dave being Dave.
Dave
LikeLike