Could you summarize? I read the introduction there, but am not planning to buy the book. The intro there hints toward a theory with this:
> The book also made huge theoretical advances. Rothbard was the first to prove that the government, and only the government, can destroy money on a mass scale, and he showed exactly how they go about this dirty deed. But just as importantly, it is beautifully written. He tells a thrilling story because he loves the subject so much.
> The passion that Murray feels for the topic comes through in the prose and transfers to the reader. Readers become excited about the subject, and tell others. Students tell professors. Some, like the great Ron Paul of Texas, have even run for political office after having read it.
It seems obvious to me that only the government can destroy (and indeed create) money, but I'm not sure how someone could claim to be the first to have proven that. From that last line I can infer that the general thrust is libertarian?
But the rules can be dumb. The exponential decay of rewards is, in my opinion, wildly unethical and leads to great harm. It permanently creates a system of haves and have-nots. That a system that cannot be changed is not in any way evidence that the system is good.
We could imagine an alternative system that Satoshi programmed that, once per year, chose 5% of wallets at random and marked those coins as invalid, permanently destroying them. That would be an unchangeable system but it would also be idiotic. Just because there isn't a bureaucrat does not mean that there is no policy.
Bitcoin has a simple policy: no one, not even Satoshi, can change the rules.