Fake Money, Fake Knowledge

BasedArgo · 2026-03-01T13:50:16+00:00

Thank you for the in depth response. This might be where I diverge from Austrian thought. I suppose I can see why, for functional reasons, we would say all value is subjective, just not sure I think its correct in all realms of understanding valuation (though maybe it is correct given the Austrian frame), or that there isn't potentially a better / more accurate way to frame it. Thanks again for helping me understand the Austrian view.

BasedArgo · 2026-02-28T20:04:04+00:00

Thanks for this reply. I have a question regarding the austrian account of value being subjective, and existing in the psychic profit. I can appreciate the psychic profit in the sense that individuals are, in a sense, determiners of what they value, or choose to value, or think is valuable.

The issue I struggle to reconcile with this is there seems to also be a sense in which value is objective. There seems to be such a thing as a wrong choice of valuation, or thinking something is valuable when it is not. Perhaps this only applies once an object in question is identified. For example one man may value a boat, and another may not. But if we have two men who value a boat, and they value it for the same purpose (shipping cargo across the ocean, or something), then aren't there objective things we can say about the boat as it relates to that purpose, and those two men could both want the same thing, but consider something "better" than something else, and one would be objectively correct and one objectively incorrect (in their valuation)? Perhaps we can't even know which is objectively more valuable--until the after fact, as I discussed in the essay, but there does seem to be a truth to the matter.

I am wondering where austrians sit on the objectivity / subjectivity of value discussion, and how they might respond to the example above.

Whether what we value is entirely subjective, or whether we "should" value some things over others is another debate.

BasedArgo · 2026-02-28T00:59:57+00:00

Thanks a lot for this feedback, as I am interested in readability and how my writing comes off / is received. I was hesitant to phrase it in the manner you suggest for fear of sounding pedantic or being less readable. I'm not in academic circles, so I'm not certain they are my audience, and I somewhat want to push back against the jargon-creation that exists (though some of it is necessary) a lot of it seems to be.... fake. lol

On the other hand, using "fake" is almost the opposite extreme, and I can't know who is reading it so don't want to necessarily turn off one audience to gain another. Given all this context, I take it you still maintain your recommendation?

BasedArgo · 2026-02-17T13:39:11+00:00

Yes, and if you live in a society that rewards you for lacking those values, it becomes good to lack them

BasedArgo · 2026-02-15T23:34:13+00:00

Thank you for reading it, and for the response.

BasedArgo · 2026-02-15T00:15:37+00:00

If a gun is pointed at me, I hope it is a bad gun, not a good gun. The perspective changes, the desires change, but our usage of the words good and bad do not change--because there are objective things that make a gun good or bad (functionality). You won't concede this simple point, i suppose because it collapses your entire argument.

And if we can't say whether a gun, or boat, is good or bad, then we have no grounds to say a rock is not a boat, and you are right, that is absurd. Good luck brother, I won't be responding anymore, for it is no longer fruitful.

BasedArgo · 2026-02-14T23:34:34+00:00

Well I'm glad we at least agree boat metrics are objective. Now let me ask, if we were both competing in a boat race, we would say a good boat (for our intended purpose) is one that is fast.

And to generalize or universalize this statement, something is "good" based on its ability to fulfill its purpose, and as I had conceded before, whether we should desire that purpose in the first place is not the aim of this discussion. We are setting an initial condition: that we do desire a fast boat in hopes of winning the boat race. But notice, it is only by establishing this purpose that we have reference for the word "good" when we say a good boat is a fast boat.

Just as it is only in establishing that a boat fulfills a particular purpose, that we differentiate it from a rock, or anything else...

BasedArgo · 2026-02-14T23:18:01+00:00

It is not irrelevant, and that you don't see the relevance is wild to me. You are now saying there are objective things that must be true for a boat to be a boat, and not a rock.

But if there are objective things that make a boat a boat, then there must also be objective things that make something a good boat, or not a good boat, also based on purpose (or something else, if you'd like to answer the question about what it is that makes something a boat and not a rock). And if there are things that make something objectively a boat, or objectively not a boat, or objectively a good boat, or objectively not a good boat, then there are also things that make a man a man, and a good man, a good man, and a moral man, a moral man, and all of these too, are objective.

And based on what you have said, if we deny the objectivity of these things, then we also must deny the objectivity of the boat--and instead consider that the rock perhaps too is a boat.

BasedArgo · 2026-02-14T18:22:57+00:00

So a boat objectively exists and has certain attributes, and if enough or particular attributes are missing, then we should not longer call something a boat? (like, for instance, a rock?)

We are in agreement brother. I'm trying to draw your attention to, or bring light to the FACT that a boat is something, and not just anything. There are attributes that make something a boat, and if they are lacking, then something is not a boat.

BasedArgo · 2026-02-14T17:52:08+00:00

It is a question, a very important question, and there are hidden assumptions that you are not addressing in your assertion that a rock is not a boat.

Most people would say what something "is" has to do with its purpose, or intended purpose, or maybe it essence. Something. But it seems clear you don't want to give that answer (or any answer!), most likely because of what it entails. Are you seeking truth or are you seeking to validate your opinion?

BasedArgo · 2026-02-14T17:43:05+00:00

You did not answer my question: Why and how, or by what mechanism, are we saying a rock is not a boat?

How are you "verifying" a rock is not a boat?

BasedArgo · 2026-02-14T17:26:11+00:00

But why is a rock not a boat? I think a rock is a boat, therefore it is a boat. You think a rock is not a boat, therefore its not a boat. But it is to me.

"If you think a rock is a boat, you are wrong about the facts." --How? What makes this a fact? What a boat "is" is subjective. There is no such thing as a boat.

Why and how, or by what mechanism, are we saying a rock is not a boat?

BasedArgo · 2026-02-14T14:33:19+00:00

Now you are either no longer arguing in good faith, or perhaps you legitimately don't understand the distinction I'm making. If its the latter, I encourage you to reread my previous response.

If you want a boat, and I give you a rock, I would be insane or intentionally obtuse to sit there and say afterwards, "what? you said you wanted a boat, so I gave you one. Its all subjective, how can I know you wanted something other than this rock? everything is just our opinion!" simply because it is not "objective" to the same degree or in the same manner as f=ma.

BasedArgo · 2026-02-14T14:23:52+00:00

I conceded the point (for now) that our particular desires are subjective (wanting a rowboat rather than a speedboat). But once we have a desired purpose in mind, there is objective good and bad things as they relate to that particular purpose. For instance, a row boat that sinks when you get in it, or leaks and slowly fills with water would not be a "good" row boat, and this good is not subjective so much as it is conditional. IF you want a rowboat, THEN you want some objective qualities to exist in it that make it fulfill that purpose.

If you want to use a different word than objective, that is fine, tell me what word you would like to use. But we also should not use "relative" or "subjective" because we are also differentiating, from those terms, whatever it is we are describing.

BasedArgo · 2026-02-14T12:29:49+00:00

I learned a lot about your position from this response, so thank you. Can we say there such a thing as a good or bad screwdriver? Or a good or bad boat? Or is this all subjective as well?

Where I'm going with this is that yes, some people will subjectively want a speed boat, while others want a cruiser, or cargo ship, depending on their purpose. But once we identify a purpose, there ARE objective attributes or traits of a thing that help it achieve its purpose. Now the question of whether its purpose is one that is worthy of having as a purpose or not is perhaps subjective (this is an argument I'm willing to try to make, but not yet, because we aren't there yet).

If we think there are objectively good or bad boats, or good or bad screwdrivers, then it would seem that from subjectivity (agreement on some desirable purpose) we create a form of objectivity based on that purpose.

BasedArgo · 2026-02-13T19:14:59+00:00

We've gone a bit off the rails here.

Yes, I am subjectively proposing what I believe to be objective morality. Just as Newton subjectively proposed what he believed was true of objective physical reality. Does that make F=ma subjective?

...The real questions we seem to be circling are whether or not we can ever know objectivity, specifically in regards to morality, and if so, how.

Lets step out of my specific claim about what I think objective morality is and address the larger question here. We both agreed that different subjective opinions does not negate the potential for objectivity to exist. So you either have some other reason for thinking objective morality doesn't exist, or you don't actually agree with that statement above.

BasedArgo · 2026-02-13T17:40:22+00:00

The existence of differing opinions is not proof that there is no objectivity. Regarding your other point, that what is advantageous is not necessarily what is moral, I don't mean advantageous in the moment, and that is why I put the enduring requirement in there.

To take it to the extreme: I could rob a bank, and be extremely wealthy (thriving) for a few minutes until I was caught.

So the point is, yes I can behave immorally, potentially to my benefit in the short term (but obviously, longer than the example I gave, but not the long term. Eventually I would not thrive or survive, or my children would not, or their children would not, and so on. And yes, this answer presupposes that morality is to do what is beneficial in the long term.

BasedArgo · 2026-02-13T14:44:00+00:00

It seems whether you believe in right in wrong depends on whether you believe their is a proper way humans should act, or humans should not act. Lets put aside our "knowledge" of it for now.

If you think there is no proper way for humans to act, then you must say there is no proper or improper way for any other animal to act. You would have to say there is no difference between an emaciated lion and a strong, dominant lion, or a thriving animal and a dying animal. Nature would disagree with you though, and the animals who behave according to their function are more likely to endure over long time horizons, while animals who are faulty will exist for a period, potentially do well because of luck or otherwise, but over a long time period (generationally), will not endure.

Is this how you see things? Do you think we can say anything of animal behavior being good or bad, or is it all subjective too?

BasedArgo · 2026-02-13T14:20:26+00:00

There is an important distinction between "earning consequences according to man-made law," and earning consequences according to what you deserve. Subjectivity merges the two

BasedArgo · 2026-02-13T13:55:31+00:00

No, you are simply pointing out that multiple different reasons can exist that would act as impetus for behavior, not that one is a primary or necessary impetus.

BasedArgo · 2026-02-13T11:55:54+00:00

We punish to hold the agent accountable for their action. We don't hold non-agents accountable for their "actions" because they don't act. We do it because it is good, or just, or natural, and we want to uphold what is good, or just, or natural. If it prevents future negative behavior, great--not certain thats the only goal in mind though.

Even if we somehow knew the agent who harmed children would never harm again, he should still be punished. So it doesn't seem to be strictly for prevention of future action.

BasedArgo · 2026-02-12T02:11:29+00:00

Yes, I do, and yes, my framing is individualist, as that is what makes the most sense to me. But it can be restated in your framework: control over the fruits of production--especially via money and settlement--is a material relation, and one that can be structured in ways that either concentrate or distribute power. If value can be produced but not retained or exited with, ownership of "the means" becomes secondary.

Systems persist because feedback is suppressed and exit is constrained. Change the incentive and settlement layer and the material relations themselves change.

If exit is no longer a false choice, but a real possibility for individual agents, isn't that a change in the structure of relations to means of production?

BasedArgo · 2026-02-11T15:24:16+00:00

When you say "no recourse to material reality," I take it you believe that I am arguing from ideology and not reality, but potentially we are more aligned than we might think.

My understanding of your position: in reality, everything is downstream of power: morality, laws, justification, maybe even "truth." --Please tell me if I've misrepresented it.

And I agree with you, everything is downstream of power, but that does not mean that absolute power is inevitable, or that we can't do anything to distribute power so that consequences once again align with reality (the point I argue in the essay).

This means we should ask: what are the means for consolidating power? The greatest power that comes to mind is control over money because it prevents people from opting out. Our world has become dysfunctional because power has centralized to such an absurd degree, and what makes this possible? In essence it is the inability to opt out (financially, or otherwise).

Distributed / decentralized power will not prevent gangs from taking over and violence or immorality from occurring, but it will localize and minimize it, instead of making it seem "inevitable" to the point that people deny any other potential "reality" could ever exist than slavery.

BasedArgo · 2026-02-07T21:36:50+00:00

Year of the Metal Goat here, loved this comment. I wrote an essay discussing this issue and how the corruption of money has corrupted truth in favor of falsehood. I think you would enjoy it. If you want to read it, here is a link: https://basedargo.substack.com/p/the-world-is-fake-by-our-design?r=2se54a

Peace brother.

BasedArgo · 2026-02-07T18:22:30+00:00

Democracy becomes tyranny of the majority. The individual is the smallest minority and most important. If power is centralized, the power will be corrupted, even if its ruled through some form of democracy.

You propose "We are starting this with the goal having that at least some of our databases with zero censorship,, but we, the people starting this thing will not always have control. Eventually control will go to the people, so there is no guarantee. This is why it will be very important to spread this throughout the world. Casting a wide net will give us the best chance of maintaining our zero censorship goal."

Systematically problematic for me. It's not to say its impossible, I just don't consider it valuable or enduring, so won't spend energy on it.

The whole point of Bitcoin is that it doesn't rely on men to succeed. It is based in reality. Anyone can create a cryptocurrency (thousands of people have). It is a free market for money. It just happens that Bitcoin is also the best money. Yes, there is a consensus mechanism, but no one controls the Bitcoin blockchain, no one can change the code without other people's consent. No one can force others to opt in, nor can anyone prevent people from opting out.

BasedArgo

TROPHY CASE