And yes, some of these single aspects can be labelled as "anarchist" or "libertarian" etc. but for (most likely) everything I can argue for the exact opposite.
yes, the reddit-level of debate seems to constantly regurgitate all the libertarian aspects, but here on bitcointalk, it was noticed a long time ago that p2p systems are inherently collectivist, anathema to libertarians.
Bitcoin is a collectivist system that mutually reinforces individual rights as a by-product. In fact, it is a stratification of mutually balancing tensions between the miners the users and people who produce forks (which includes the developers, of course). But this is not an original observation, as I say, someone else said all this stuff here on bitcointalk years ago.
Peter Thiel is CEO of a private surveilance company (Palantir), and that company is know for spying on normal people. At the same time, hes calling himself a "Libertarian" while hes openly opposing the free market because in his opinion, monopolies are better. That has nothing to do with "liberal / libertarian" values. A free and fair market
But in his "Libertarianism", hes allowed to create a monopoly, to crush the free market because Thiel simply can do it due to his wealth (and get even more wealthy from his monopoly). Theres a great article about
Thiels bullshit here.
And similar to Thiel, many rich people are pushing such a "Libertarian" strategy.
"Libertarian" has become a sponge word used by everyone and the people pushing this "Libertarianism" (which is exactly the opposite of that what would be really beneficial for normal people like getting rid of powerful structures abusing anything to their advantage) just want to replace currently existing rules with their own rules.
And thats where Ive questioned how to turn Libertarian theories into reality because always someone like Bezos, Thiel or Musk will come and abuse a
vacuum of power.
Its very important to understand the consequences of a
vaccum of power.
Some Libertarian theories explicitly try to remove any rules but when there are no rules (vacuum), this vacuum will be filled by those who have or will quickly accumulate power (money).
Maybe youve also played monopoly (the game). There are some rules how to play but it always turns out when very late in the game one person owned all of the streets, placing hotels on it and everyone else goes bankrupt (because you cant pay your rent). Thats a likely outcome how Thiels vision would escalate quickly.
On a much bigger scale than our monopoly of course, where the monopoly game could be your city.
Its not a secret that when there are no rules, chaos will arise. Just imagine the forum where no DT would be active, no rules would be in place and spam piling up because its not getting deleted.
Some players filling this vaccum might be nice, get powerful but dont do many harmful things. Some other players filling the vaccum might be the opposite and they will abuse any vaccum for their profit. And these evil players will crush everyone, nobody could stop them at one point.
Similar like Thiel intends to construct his monopoly: remove all rules and when all rules are removed, use your money (power) to establish your own (insane) rules (his monopoly). Netzpolitik.org, the site where Ive linked the article above, calls Thiels vision "anti-democratic Libertarianism".
And thats exactly what Thiel is trying to do: trying to dictate the rules himself.
Thats vacuum of power.
I cant see in regard of Libertarian visions any concept of how the end game could suceed.
Libertarians (or what some people claim to be) have provided interesting visions and part of that are very important and also relevant for Bitcoin. But the end game from Libertarianism is similar like Communism, it just doesnt work because its quickly abused by a small, wealthy and powerful group of people.
So far, nobody could address arising problems of these visions, both Communism and Libertarianism.
I believe people have addressed those problems (usurping structural changes in the political system) even on this forum before, I certainly remember talking on it myself.
and yes, you might well conclude though that Bitcoin is also anti-democratic too, depending on your definition of democracy. for sure, it has already begun to re-shape the nation state, and may not stop until the re-invention leaves the state unrecognizable; I expect the former country's name will be the only characteristic that sticks.
Unfortunately, a power vacuum is exactly what that kind of scenario has as it's destination, although temporarily perhaps. The system we're presently living in really is nothing more than anarchism gone wrong; the smartest, least ethical gang leaders turned the world's successful tribes into a series of elaborate yet thinly disguised cults. The picture you paint of Thiel is arguably more benevolent than what we're enduring now (of which Thiel himself is simply a execrable component, albeit a valuable one to the ruthless). At least with Thiel, he himself makes it plainly obvious that he's a snake. Or at least I would hope so it's obvious.
And so the answer to me is that some critical mass of people see we're an anarchic system that was overrun by jackals and coyotes, and that we can expect the same cycle to endlessly repeat until we recognize it