Jeff Park Underscores Liberal Democracy's 'Shackled Leviathan' Nature, Extends Analogy to Money

In a recent social media post, Jeff Park, Head of Alpha Strategies at Bitwise, articulated a profound perspective on the inherent instability of liberal democracies, characterizing them as "shackled Leviathans." He emphasized that these political systems are not static end-states but rather ongoing experiments demanding continuous active management and vigilance. Park further extended this philosophical framework to the nature of money, highlighting a similar need for careful stewardship.

The core concept of the "shackled Leviathan" originates from the work of economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, particularly in their acclaimed book "The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, and the Fate of Liberty." This theory posits that true liberty flourishes within a delicate balance where the state possesses sufficient capacity to enforce laws and provide public services, yet remains constrained and accountable by a strong, mobilized civil society. Without this continuous societal vigilance, the state risks descending into either despotism or ineffective anarchy.

Park's tweet underscored this precarious equilibrium within liberal democracies, stating:

"There is a well-known saying that liberal democracies are “shackled Leviathans,” inherently unstable between two states of despot and dystopia. That is precisely because liberal democracy is not a final-end state itself, but rather an ongoing experiment that must be actively managed and constantly fought for in a precarious balance."

Drawing a parallel, Park cited another scholar, stating:

"As Waller notes, this is also true for the case of money itself. With dutiful care, civil society must embrace the twists and turns of progress, the unexpected paths that lead to prosperity." This analogy aligns with Park's broader commentary on global financial systems, where he frequently discusses the dynamic and often contested nature of fiat currencies and the emergence of digital assets like Bitcoin as a response to perceived institutional vulnerabilities and "fiat debasement." He has previously noted that the "social contract of how money works is not as benign and compassionate as people might explain it to be," suggesting that financial systems, much like political ones, require constant adaptation and oversight from civil society.

His analysis suggests that both political and monetary systems, despite their established forms, are subject to continuous evolution and potential disruption. Maintaining their integrity and functionality, and ensuring they serve the broader civil society, necessitates an ongoing, proactive engagement rather than passive acceptance. This perspective calls for a vigilant approach to institutional design and societal participation to navigate the complexities of progress and secure collective prosperity.