This post glaringly omits the actual relationship, which is Hayek -> Austrian school -> anarchocapitalism -> Bitcoin. All steps of this are firmly established. So of course Bitcoiners are going to reach back to something they can prop themselves up with.
I read Golumbia’s book and while I don’t doubt the general thrust of his thesis it was written in a polemical style that I don’t associate with “academia”. Maybe it’s a US thing, maybe the fact that it’s a university imprint doesn’t really imply it’s “impartial”, but I feel that some general readers might be put off by the default left-wing view of the author.
Not non-standard for his field, I think, but definitely not what techies expect. Nevertheless, he nails down every dot of his thesis. And it’s hardly an observation unique to Golumbia - the cypherpunks list was explicitly, by name, “anarcho-capitalist” (usually with a hyphen). They were very upfront about their ideology and where they were coming from; there’s no reason why saying “Bitcoin comes from anarchocapitalism” should get the automatic response “Golumbia” as if the claim originated with him. It’s not in any way a controversial or reasonably disputable statement.
Chapter 2 of my own book dealt with this stuff, but I was facing a ridiculous amount of work tracing and nailing it all down if Golumbia’s hadn’t done my homework for me ;-) I still recommend his book to everyone who wants to know WTF about Bitcoin.
I didn’t mean the thesis that Bitcoin ideologically flows from right-wing/anarcho-capitalist ideas was first articulated by Golumbia. He did a good job tracing it even further back to the John Birch society etc. I picked up and read the book precisely because I wanted a better overview of the landscape than scattered reading on the internet would give me.
Thanks for the capsule overview of Hayek’s view on how money should be organized.