Chapter 8: Capital Theory and Entrepreneurship
"Capital is produced means of production."
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, The Positive Theory of Capital (1889)^1^
"The entrepreneur is the driving force of the market economy."
Israel M. Kirzner, Competition and Entrepreneurship (1973)^2^
Introduction
Privacy infrastructure is capital. It requires present sacrifice for future capability. Investment in encrypted communication systems and secure development environments, along with anonymous networks,^19^ yields forms of coordination that direct approaches cannot achieve.
This chapter applies Austrian capital theory and entrepreneurship analysis to privacy. Böhm-Bawerk's insights about roundabout production explain why indirect methods of achieving privacy (building infrastructure) outperform direct methods (trusting institutions). Kirzner's entrepreneurial alertness explains how privacy innovations emerge through market discovery.
The analysis also illuminates a practical tradeoff: privacy often requires accepting inconvenience now for protection later. Time preference theory explains why some individuals invest in privacy infrastructure while others accept surveillance for immediate convenience. Neither choice is irrational; they reflect different preferences about present versus future satisfaction.
Consider a merchant who wants to sell without building a permanent dossier about customers. The direct route is to use ordinary banking and a mainstream storefront while trusting intermediaries to behave, while the roundabout route is slower and asks the merchant to learn Bitcoin,^3^ shift communication onto encrypted channels, build trade on rails that do not depend on platform surveillance. The second route demands present effort. It also creates future capabilities the first route cannot provide.
8.1 Privacy Infrastructure as Capital Goods
Capital Goods vs. Consumer Goods
Praxeology distinguishes capital goods from consumer goods by their relationship to human wants. Consumer goods satisfy wants directly, as food satisfies hunger; capital goods satisfy wants indirectly by enhancing future production, as a factory produces goods that satisfy wants. A single encrypted message or one-time anonymous purchase is a privacy consumer good, satisfying a want directly. Encrypted communication systems, secure development environments, and anonymous-network infrastructure are privacy capital goods: they enable future production of privacy benefits across many uses.
Higher-Order and Lower-Order Goods
Menger classified goods by their distance from final consumption:^4^
First-order goods (consumer goods) directly satisfy wants. Second-order goods produce first-order goods. Third-order goods produce second-order goods, and so on, with each order enabling production at the next lower level.
Privacy infrastructure exhibits this hierarchical structure. Cryptographic research and protocol development sit near the high end, user applications and privacy services at the low end, with development frameworks and communication protocols in between; each higher order enables production at the next lower level.^14^
Investment in higher-order goods yields greater returns but requires longer time horizons and greater patience. Cryptographic research may take years before producing consumer-facing applications.^13^
Roundabout Production
Böhm-Bawerk showed that indirect (roundabout) production methods often yield superior results.^5^ The direct approach uses simple tools for immediate results; the roundabout approach invests time building better tools, slower to start but yielding superior long-term capability.
Direct privacy relies on institutional promises and legal frameworks backed by trust: quick to implement but vulnerable to authority changes and institutional compromise. Roundabout privacy builds cryptographic infrastructure that enables mathematical verification, slower to develop but protected independently of institutional cooperation. The roundabout approach requires lower time preference, and the payoff is privacy that does not depend on others' cooperation.
8.2 Time Preference and the Privacy-Convenience Tradeoff
The Tradeoff
Privacy often requires inconvenience. Encrypted communication requires key management and anonymous transactions require additional steps; secure systems in general impose learning curves before they become usable.
This creates a real tradeoff: accept surveillance for immediate convenience, or accept inconvenience for future privacy protection.
For the merchant above, the inconvenience is concrete: extra setup and more skills to learn before the first private sale feels ordinary. The later payoff is also concrete: cleaner settlement and fewer chokepoints watching the customer relationship.
Neither choice is inherently irrational. They reflect different time preferences, though time preference is not the only factor at work. Knowledge matters: users who do not understand surveillance risks cannot rationally weigh them. Convenience technologies often obscure their costs, making present benefits salient while hiding future risks. Social norms influence choices: if everyone uses surveilled services, privacy-protecting alternatives may lack network effects. Technical skill affects the cost of privacy: for users who find encryption easy, the tradeoff tilts toward privacy; for those who struggle, convenience weighs more heavily. Time preference remains central, but it interacts with information, skill, and social context.
Time Preference Theory
Time preference is the preference for present satisfaction over future satisfaction. All else equal, people prefer goods now to goods later. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar next year.
But time preference varies among individuals:
Individuals with high time preference have a strong preference for present satisfaction and are willing to accept future costs for present benefits. Individuals with low time preference have a weaker preference for present satisfaction and are willing to accept present costs for future benefits.
Application to Privacy
High time preference individuals may rationally choose surveillance-enabled services. The convenience is immediate and certain, while the privacy costs are future and uncertain. Discounting future costs heavily, the trade favors convenience.
Low time preference individuals may rationally choose privacy infrastructure. The inconvenience is temporary as learning occurs, while the privacy benefits compound over time. Valuing future benefits highly, the trade favors privacy.
This explains market segmentation in privacy technology. Some users adopt privacy tools despite inconvenience; others prefer convenient surveilled alternatives. Both are responding rationally to their own time preferences.
Infrastructure Investment as Low Time Preference
Building privacy infrastructure requires even lower time preference than using privacy tools. Developers invest years before seeing adoption. Protocol designers work without immediate compensation. Open source contributors sacrifice present income for future impact.^15^
This explains why privacy infrastructure development concentrates among individuals with unusually low time preference, often those with strong ideological commitment or unusual patience.
Market Coordination of Time Preferences
Markets coordinate different time preferences:
Low time preference individuals build infrastructure. They accept present sacrifice for future capability, investing in tools, protocols, and systems.
High time preference individuals use infrastructure. They benefit from others' investment without sharing the development burden.
The division looks like free-riding, but it is closer to specialization. Developers are compensated through eventual adoption and reputation, users pay through purchase prices or donations, and markets coordinate the different time preferences of each side through voluntary exchange.
8.3 Entrepreneurial Discovery in Privacy
Kirznerian Alertness
Israel Kirzner explained entrepreneurship as alertness to profit opportunities others miss:^6^
Entrepreneurs do not possess superior knowledge of given data. They notice opportunities that exist in the data but that others overlook. This alertness enables them to arbitrage between current market conditions and unrecognized possibilities.
Privacy technology exhibits Kirznerian discovery. Entrepreneurs notice coordination problems. Existing tools fail to protect certain communications, and market participants cannot coordinate without surveillance. Institutional solutions leave gaps that technology can fill.
They then develop solutions. New protocols address unmet needs and applications serve markets that incumbents ignored because surveillance was the business model.
Entrepreneurs profit from that alertness. Early adoption captures market position, and infrastructure investment creates durable competitive advantages.
Discovery of Privacy Needs
Privacy needs are not always obvious. Many people do not recognize their privacy is compromised until harm occurs. Entrepreneurs notice these unrecognized needs:
Some needs involve latent demand: people would value privacy if they understood what they were losing, and entrepreneurs educate while serving. Other needs are unarticulated: people experience identity theft or embarrassing leaks, along with chilling effects, without connecting them to privacy, and entrepreneurs make the connection. Still other needs are future-oriented: surveillance capabilities will expand, and entrepreneurs anticipate problems before they become acute.
This discovery process explains why privacy technology often leads user demand instead of following it. Entrepreneurs see what users do not yet recognize.
Creative Destruction
Schumpeter described innovation as creative destruction: new solutions displacing old ones, often destroying established businesses while creating new value.^7^
Privacy technology exhibits creative destruction. Encrypted messaging displaces SMS,^16^ which is both less secure and more surveilled. Cryptocurrency displaces some payment systems built on surveillance and control.^17^ Decentralized platforms compete with centralized ones whose revenue depends on data extraction.
This destruction is creative because it serves users better. The displaced solutions were inferior; their displacement is progress. But it is destructive for established interests that benefited from the old arrangements.
Entrepreneurial Judgment Under Uncertainty
Peter Klein emphasizes that entrepreneurship involves judgment under uncertainty:^8^ decisions about resource allocation when outcomes cannot be known in advance.
Privacy entrepreneurs face substantial uncertainty. Adoption depends on factors they cannot control, and the legal environment may shift beneath them mid-development. Competitors may develop superior solutions while they build, and implementation itself may reveal problems no design anticipated.
Entrepreneurial judgment involves committing resources despite this uncertainty. Successful entrepreneurs are not those who eliminate uncertainty but those who judge well amid it.
8.4 Capital Heterogeneity and Privacy Specialization
Hayek on Capital Heterogeneity
Hayek showed that capital goods are heterogeneous: different tools serve different purposes and cannot be arbitrarily substituted.^9^ Ludwig Lachmann deepened this analysis, showing that capital goods stand in relationships of complementarity and substitutability that only entrepreneurial judgment can assess.^18^
A hammer is not interchangeable with a saw, and a truck is not interchangeable with a ship; each capital good has specific uses and capabilities.
Investment decisions must therefore match capital to purpose. Misallocated capital cannot be reassigned, and coordination requires matching specific capitals to specific needs.
Privacy Capital Specialization
Privacy infrastructure exhibits heterogeneous capital characteristics. Cryptographic libraries cannot substitute for user-interface frameworks, and anonymous-network routing cannot substitute for identity management; each capital good has its function, and a well-developed library does not compensate for poor operational security.
Market Coordination of Heterogeneous Capital
Markets coordinate heterogeneous capital through price signals and entrepreneurial discovery:
Profit opportunities signal where capital is needed; high returns in a segment attract investment while low returns signal oversupply. Specialization enables expertise development as developers focus on specific components where they have comparative advantage. Exchange enables coordination between specialists, as those with cryptographic expertise trade with those having user interface expertise.
No central planner could coordinate this heterogeneous capital. The knowledge required, about specific capabilities, compatibility constraints, and market needs, is too dispersed. Only market processes can coordinate effectively.
8.5 Capital Formation and Privacy Development
The Capital Formation Process
Capital formation requires savings, investment, time, and maintenance.^10^ Privacy capital formation follows this pattern:
In the savings phase, developers forgo current income to invest in infrastructure development, and users forgo convenient surveilled services to invest in learning privacy tools. In the investment phase, resources flow into protocol development, application creation, and network building; time and effort produce capital goods. The time dimension is substantial: privacy infrastructure takes years to develop and deploy, and returns in the form of privacy protection emerge gradually. Maintenance through ongoing development then preserves security properties; code review and updates maintain capital value.
Open Source as Capital Formation
Open source development is a distinctive form of capital formation:^11^
Open source involves collective investment, as many developers contribute without direct compensation to create shared capital. The resulting code is non-rivalrous capital: unlike physical capital, open-source code can be used by unlimited parties without depletion. Competitive improvement accelerates capital formation as multiple developers enhance the same code base. Transparency also increases capital quality because open code enables security verification.
This mode of capital formation enables privacy infrastructure development that proprietary approaches could not match. The capital is collectively created and freely available, and because the code is open it is continuously improved by anyone with the skill and motivation to contribute.
Capital Accumulation and Privacy Capability
Capital accumulates through successful investment:
Individual accumulation occurs as developers who build successful tools can use them for future projects; expertise compounds and networks of collaborators develop. System accumulation occurs as successful protocols enable new applications, infrastructure investment creates platforms for future development, and each layer enables the next. Knowledge accumulation occurs as solutions to past problems inform future development; lessons learned become embedded in practices and code.
This accumulation explains why privacy technology has improved dramatically over decades. Each generation builds on previous achievements, using accumulated capital for further advancement.
Chapter Summary
Privacy infrastructure is capital in the Austrian sense, produced means of production that require present sacrifice for future capability. Roundabout methods of achieving privacy, which build cryptographic tools and protocols, outperform direct methods that rely on institutional promises: the second approach depends on the continuing goodwill of institutions the user cannot control, and the first does not. Higher-order goods (cryptographic foundations, protocols) enable lower-order goods (applications, services), and each generation of development compounds on the accumulated capital of the last.
Time preference theory explains why users split over the privacy-convenience tradeoff without either side being irrational. High time preference favors immediate convenience through surveillance-enabled services; low time preference favors investment in privacy infrastructure whose payoff accumulates over time. Markets coordinate these preferences through specialization, with low-time-preference developers building tools that high-time-preference users can later adopt. Entrepreneurial discovery drives the innovation itself: alert entrepreneurs notice unmet privacy needs and develop solutions that displace inferior surveilled systems. Capital heterogeneity means different tools serve different purposes, and no central planner could coordinate the dispersed knowledge their allocation requires.
The chapter provides the capital-theoretic foundation. Which specific tools to adopt, and how they work in practice, belong to Parts V and VI. The ethical case against state channels rests on Chapter 4's argumentation ethics and Chapter 5's analysis of coercion. The institutional forms through which privacy capital is deployed at scale come in Chapters 24 through 26, and this chapter supplies the foundation they presuppose.^12^
Endnotes
^1^ Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest, vol. 2: Positive Theory of Capital, trans. George D. Huncke and Hans F. Sennholz (South Holland, IL: Libertarian Press, 1959), 13-21.
^2^ Israel M. Kirzner, Competition and Entrepreneurship (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), 35-42.
^3^ Bitcoin Core, https://bitcoincore.org/, with the original protocol description in Satoshi Nakamoto, "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" (2008), https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. For the systems-cluster treatment of Bitcoin in the cypherpunk lineage, see Chapter 2, note 8; for the security-model treatment, see Chapter 5, note 9.
^4^ Carl Menger, Principles of Economics, trans. James Dingwall and Bert F. Hoselitz (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007 [1871]), 55-67. Menger's theory of goods orders, developed in the early chapters of Principles, provides the foundation for Austrian capital theory; the subjective-value treatment cited at Chapter 3, note 5 covers the later chapters of the same volume.
^5^ Böhm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest, vol. 2, chapters 1-4; see also "The Roundabout Process in the Interest Theory," Quarterly Journal of Economics 21, no. 4 (1907): 529-590.
^6^ Kirzner, Competition and Entrepreneurship, 65-85. For development, see Kirzner, Perception, Opportunity, and Profit: Studies in the Theory of Entrepreneurship (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979).
^7^ Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 3rd ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1950), 82-85, where the "creative destruction" formulation is given its canonical statement.
^8^ Peter G. Klein, The Capitalist and the Entrepreneur: Essays on Organizations and Markets (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010), 1-35.
^9^ Friedrich A. Hayek, The Pure Theory of Capital (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941), chapters 15-18; see also Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), chapters 4-6.
^10^ Peter Lewin, Capital in Disequilibrium: The Role of Capital in a Changing World (London: Routledge, 1999), 85-112. Lewin shows how capital formation involves knowledge accumulation.
^11^ On open source as economic phenomenon, see Eric S. Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rev. ed. (Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media, 2001); Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006).
^12^ Further reading on Austrian capital theory. The classical Austrian treatment is Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest, 3 vols. (cited in note 1 above); Ludwig M. Lachmann, Capital and Its Structure (Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1956; reprinted by Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1978), https://mises.org/library/capital-and-its-structure, develops the heterogeneity and complementarity of capital goods; Friedrich A. Hayek, The Pure Theory of Capital (cited in note 9 above), is the most rigorous extension. For the Kirznerian synthesis of capital, time, and entrepreneurial discovery, see Israel M. Kirzner, An Essay on Capital (Augustus M. Kelley, 1966); Competition and Entrepreneurship (cited in note 2 above) extends the framework, and Kirzner is also discussed at Chapter 7, notes 6 and 12. For modern Austrian treatments, Peter Lewin, Capital in Disequilibrium (cited in note 10 above); Peter Lewin and Nicolás Cachanosky, Austrian Capital Theory: A Modern Survey of the Essentials (Cambridge University Press, 2019), is the best contemporary entry point. On the specific question of time preference, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed (cited at Chapter 5, note 12); Hoppe, The Great Fiction (Laissez Faire Books, 2012), develops the political-economy implications. On open-source production as a capital-formation mode, Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (cited in note 11 above); Steven Weber, The Success of Open Source (Harvard University Press, 2004), is the standard sociological treatment. For the economics of software and protocol development, Glyn Moody, Rebel Code: Linux and the Open Source Revolution (Perseus, 2001); Eric Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar (cited in note 11 above), is the narrative history.
^13^ On cryptographic research timelines and the gap between theoretical foundations and deployed applications, see Whitfield Diffie and Martin E. Hellman, "New Directions in Cryptography," IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 22, no. 6 (1976): 644-654, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1055638. The 1976 paper established public-key cryptography as a theoretical possibility; RSA followed in 1977; mass deployment in TLS took until the mid-1990s, a gap of nearly two decades illustrating the higher-order/lower-order production structure described here.
^14^ The layered structure maps onto the protocol stack described in Steven Levy, Crypto: How the Code Rebels Beat the Government - Saving Privacy in the Digital Age (New York: Viking, 2001). Levy's narrative traces how academic public-key cryptography (highest-order) enabled PGP (mid-order), which enabled encrypted email applications (lowest-order), each layer depending on the one above and enabling the ones below.
^15^ Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2001), chapters 1-2. Hoppe derives time preference theory's implications for capital accumulation and civilization from Mises's framework; his analysis explains why high-time-preference institutional environments systematically crowd out the long-horizon investment that privacy infrastructure requires.
^16^ On SMS's security weaknesses, see the GSM Association's own acknowledgment of SS7 protocol vulnerabilities: Adrian Lison, "SS7 Vulnerabilities and the Threats They Pose to Mobile Network Security," GSMA Intelligence (2017); Karsten Nohl et al., "Roaming Off the Beaten Track: Cellular Traffic Interception," 31st Chaos Communication Congress (2014). For the displacement by encrypted messaging, see Open Whisper Systems (now Signal Messenger), https://signal.org, and the Signal Protocol specification: Trevor Perrin and Moxie Marlinspike, "The Double Ratchet Algorithm" (2016), https://signal.org/docs/specifications/doubleratchet/.
^17^ Friedrich A. Hayek, Denationalisation of Money: The Argument Refined, 2nd ed. (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1978). Hayek argued that government monopoly on money issuance is neither economically necessary nor beneficial, and that competing private currencies would serve consumers better, providing the theoretical foundation for understanding cryptocurrency as displacing surveillance-dependent payment systems on economic grounds.
^18^ Ludwig M. Lachmann, Capital and Its Structure (London: Bell & Sons, 1956; reprinted Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1978), https://mises.org/library/capital-and-its-structure, chapters 2-3. Lachmann showed that capital goods are heterogeneous in kind and stand in complex relationships of complementarity and substitutability that vary with the production plan; no engineering specification can substitute for the entrepreneurial judgment that determines which combinations are viable.
^19^ Roger Dingledine, Nick Mathewson, and Paul Syverson, "Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router," Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium (2004), https://svn.torproject.org/svn/projects/design-paper/tor-design.pdf; Tor Project, https://www.torproject.org. Tor is the canonical example of anonymous-network infrastructure as a capital good: years of academic research and ongoing development produce a routing layer that privacy applications depend on, but that no single application use exhausts.
<- **Previous: The Economic Value of Privacy** |
-> Next: Money and Privacy |
The Praxeology of Privacy -- third edition. New chapters publish daily at 1600 UTC.