On Unity: Addendum

The Issue of Blockchain Use and the Controversy Concerning Child Sovereignty

To understand the backstory of this Addendum, find Parts I, II, and III of this series at The Populist Papers on Substack

After listening to and engaging with the many comments on social media concerning this series thus far, I thought I would write this addendum to clarify exactly why I see the ideological divide, rather than the particular controversies raised, as “the crux of the issue”. My apologies for the lack of specificity in Part I as, for the sake of brevity, I erred on the side of my own personal bias. Perhaps I too quickly engaged in a discussion of ideology when I should have been more clear as to how the issues raised reflect common criticisms of libertarianism including blockchain use and the clearly controversial topic of child sovereignty.

First, I would like to thank all who engaged in dialogue over the series as it stands. I will continue to incorporate all feedback into my personal perception as we move forward. Having said that, I must say I was disappointed about the lack of interest I received concerning the bulk of the series which focused on the importance of dialogue in order to overcome the inherent conflict contained within the traditional dialectical paradigm of history that lies at the foundation of the left/right divide.

Rather, most attention was given to the notion that the work of Alison McDowell revealed that activist Derrick Broze advocates for the exploitation of child labor through the use of blockchain technology. I believe that this assertion could only be made through a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarian philosophy, and its fundamental intention to liberate humanity from patriarchial systems. This feeling renders the discussion an ideological one, but I will take now take the time to address these accusations more directly.

The Importance of Intention

First, I want to make a point that, for me, a person’s intention is more valuable and important than the particulars of any argument or debate. We can discuss the nuances of both blockchain and child sovereignty all day but can we agree that we do so out of very real concern for the future of humanity? Our differences of opinion should not cast aspersions upon our united belief that these opinions reflect a desire for the betterment of the welfare of the common people, including most importantly the welfare of the younger generation. To my mind, both Alison and Derrick, in their own way, are fighting the good fight against the centralization of power in the hands of the technocratic elite. Both are competent and caring individuals so, for me, their disagreements deserve further inquiry, rather than avoidance.

On Blockchain

The blockchain question is one that needs to be approached within the context of the history of this technology, specifically its use to develop what we now know of as cryptocurrency. When bitcoin arrived on the scene in 2009, many libertarians were excited to discover an opportunity to engage in a currency with the potential to supersede the central banking establishment they perceived as the root cause of much of the wealth inequality and economic injustice in the world. We all agree that institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are tools of colonial oppression.

For the libertarian, the cause of this oppression is the monopolizing of currency markets and the issuance of a debt-based fiat currency under the control of a criminal central banking cartel. This cartel literally skims off the top of the entirety of the colonized world as interest payments make their way to the top of the pyramid in control of this protection racket. Thus, the solution to the problem is the issuance of currencies that can compete with this racket by providing options different from the prevailing imposed monopoly. Such was the hope when blockchain technologies began to create a cryptocurrency market that could circumvent the colonial system.

Alison’s work exposed the use of certain blockchain technologies for the purposes of data collection and caused many to rethink their relationship. It is now clear that many blockchains once believed to ensure privacy in financial transactions, while still keeping track of personal data to show proof of ownership, actually allow the issuer of the coin access to all data collected on the electronic chain. Such data will be used by the very technocrats many libertarians believed they were working to circumvent. This is not the first time the upper classes have co-opted an enterprise to their favor, and it will not be the last.

I believe that this conversation needs to take into account that those who support cryptocurrencies do so out of an intention to liberate humanity. That many have been hoodwinked into supporting a co-opted technology does not make them bad people.

While I am very appreciative of the work Alison has done to expose the dangers of centralizing data using blockchain technology, what I am not convinced of is that all blockchains are inherently in service to the centralized technocratic system. Many people are currently working to create a decentralized technological platform that protects data, rather than aggregating it. This article discusses the development of privacy coins designed to circumvent the current financial system while protecting user data.

My point is not to argue one way or another, but to let the reader know that there is a perspective concerning blockchain that believes the technology can be used by the common person as a tool for liberation. Those who hold this perspective might be wrong, but they are not evil. The goal of this series of essays is to advocate for continued and respectful dialogue concerning this subject, so those interested in participating in the crypto space can make personal choices from a well-educated point of view.

My concern is that Alison’s perspective, which from my understanding, concludes that all blockchain use is necessarily exploitative, may be clouded by her ideological perspective. While I cannot speak for her, in the controversial video that prompted this series, host Jason Bosch makes the claim that currency markets represent a type of gambling over assets that have no real value. As Alison does not object, I think it is safe to assume that she agreed with him. You can find my response, from a libertarian perspective, in this conversation with Jason I had last year.

Again, I cannot presume to understand another’s perspective, but I infer that if one does not believe at all in the utility of currency markets, it would be difficult to sympathize with those who believe that currency markets, including cryptocurrencies, are a solution to the problem of the currency monopolization characteristic of the system of colonization. From my perspective, this is an ideological point of view that, perhaps, causes some to fear the intentions of libertarians on this issue and is potentially responsible for the lack of solidarity between the two camps. This ideological difference is for me, the crux of the issue.

Child Sovereignty and Exploitation

Of course, if all blockchain is exploitative, then the use of such technology against children must be the most nefarious use of all. Here is the 90-second clip of Derrick’s interview with Cathrine Austin-Fitts where he casually mentions the possibility of a positive use case for crypto-based gaming that started the controversy. Remember, from Derrick’s point of view, not all blockchain use is exploitative, so this off-the-cuff remark about kids making a side hustle out of online gaming means little more to him than a parent allowing their child to babysit or help out with the family store. At what point does involvement with online gaming become exploitation?

Now, I understand and appreciate Alison’s concerns that such games can easily be used by unscrupulous actors to collect data from underserved children in the third world. I will also say that Alison makes connections with the online gaming platform Splinterlands, which is apparently the platform Derrick was referring to, and Singaporean investors with ties to the WEF which appear factual. From this information, there is an argument to be made that Derrick is hypocritical, most likely because he was unaware of these connections. Fair enough. What is confusing to me is how one makes the leap from the comment posted above, to the notion that Derrick is advocating for the exploitation of child labor sacrificed at the hands of global capital? Clearly, this was not his intention.

Having said that, I am not sure the extent to which this investor from Singapore has affected Splinterlands or its gaming platform. If my child was interested in participating in this game as a way to make personal cash, I would like to know more information before I made a decision. What kind of game is this? What kind of blockchain technology is being used? What data is being collected, and where is it going? I would want to know the answers to these questions and more, before making the decision to disallow my child from playing at all, allow it with certain parameters, or be comfortable with it at my child’s leisure. Either way, I would probably use the situation as a teachable moment to explain the dangers of online data collection so the kid could make better decisions for themself in the future.

It’s not that I think that Alison was wrong to speak up about her concerns as much as I feel the response was an overreaction to Derrick’s proposition. Derrick Broze is not an evil person. He is not proposing the sacrifice of children to a hypercapitalist global machine. He is proposing an application for a technology that he believes can be used to help people.

It’s this overreaction that makes me believe the response is ideologically based and as such the conflict cannot be resolved without also addressing the fundamental ideological differences between Broze and McDowell. It is clear in Alison’s video that she feels technocracy is driven by “global free market capital”. She includes an entire section about Milton Freidman and the hypocrisy of the Chicago School, while not mentioning that Derrick is influenced by the Agorist Samuel Konkin III. These schools of thought are very different.

As a libertarian myself, the issue of child sovereignty is perhaps the most controversial and easiest to attack. Taking a stance against child labor laws sounds offensive at first glance. Only through comprehensive dialogue can an appreciation of the nuance develop. Here and here are just two articles that barely scratch the surface. Libertarians are not interested in the reduction of parents’ rights by eliminating child labor laws, as some have speculated. Rather the goal is to expand these rights to allow parents the ability to let their children exchange labor for value within the context of appropriate parental oversight.

The bottom line is each case is different, each child is unique and each situation needs attending to by parents, extended family, and the broader community charged with the protection of the next generation. It is not our place to tell parents and caregivers how to raise their children. It is our place to help educate them through open and honest discussions about the pros and cons of the variety of issues parents deal with every day.

The major focus of this series was to promote a healthy dialogue that could accomplish just that.

Avoidance

In Part II, I discuss the inherently psychological nature of the conflicting views contained within the left/right paradigm. Once one identifies with either side, logic flies out the window in favor of a pre-designated worldview that leads quickly to cognitive dissonance when approached by ideas outside the paradigm.

As I described in that essay, it has been nearly impossible to break through the wall of psychological conditioning that allows for a rational discussion concerning elements of political economy that exist outside the dialectical perspective. Frankly, I think the emphasis on particular issues such as disagreements concerning the potential positive uses of blockchain technology and the concept of child sovereignty are forms of psychological conflict avoidance.

These issues become red herrings, allowing the conversation to focus on anything but the ideological construct ready to defend against any idea that threatens to topple a dysfunctional, if ingrained, world view. Straw men are built and become a tool used to paint the “enemy” as “evil”, rather than engaging in logical dialogue where our conformation biases can be tested and revealed.

Without the ideological issue, the curtain of division falls away to reveal the obvious conclusion that everyone has humanity’s best interest at heart. All of us have only the best intentions for children, families, and communities currently threatened with a technocratic future if nothing is done to stop it. If we can respect that fact we can move forward through dialogue toward a unified movement with the power to create real substantive change.

Please consider subscribing if you are interested in learning more about my perspective, and I look forward to engaging in the broader conversation as those of us resistant to the technocratic takeover continue to seek a healthier relationship with life, the planet, and each other as we move forward.

For more information about my work and to find all episodes of my podcasts, go to www.theshiftnow.com. Paid subscribers to The Populist Papers will receive a subscription to “The Shift with Doug McKenty” and have access to all feature-length versions of the podcast.