BOOK REVIEW

Softwar and Power Projection in the Digital Age: A Critical Analysis in Light of the Austrian School of Economics

Bitcoin, Liberdade e Coerção Estratégica no Pensamento de Jason P. Lowery

Abstract: This article presents a critical analysis of Softwar: A Novel Theory on Power Projection and the National Strategic Significance of Bitcoin, by Jason P. Lowery, grounded in the principles of the Austrian School of Economics. Lowery’s proposal is interpreted as an attempt to incorporate Bitcoin into the U.S. strategic defense apparatus, redefining it as a tool of military deterrence. In opposition, this paper argues that Bitcoin is the result of spontaneous order, rooted in the philosophy of individual liberty, private property, and resistance to coercion. The analysis is structured around conceptual themes, contrasting Lowery’s militarized view with the epistemological, economic, and ethical foundations of the Austrian tradition.

Keywords: Bitcoin, Austrian School of Economics, State, individual liberty, praxeology, state coercion, private property.

Introduction

This article aims to offer a critical analysis of Softwar: A Novel Theory on Power Projection and the National Strategic Significance of Bitcoin, written by Jason P. Lowery and published in 2023. Over the course of more than 350 pages, the author proposes a radical reinterpretation of Bitcoin, not as a currency, store of value, or disruptive financial technology, but as a new form of military deterrence, capable of replacing conventional weaponry in power projection conflicts within cyberspace. This strategic reinterpretation, rather than Bitcoin itself, constitutes the central focus of this article.

Lowery’s proposition, both innovative and controversial, demands a thorough examination through the theoretical frameworks of economic science, political philosophy, and the theory of human action. The analysis begins by recognizing that Softwar is neither a conventional economics book nor a work of empirical science. It is a strategic text, written by an active-duty officer in the United States Space Force, explicitly intended to influence American national security doctrine. Nevertheless, the book presents a new theory regarding Bitcoin’s role in the international system and thus raises issues that go far beyond the military field. The economic, moral, and epistemological implications of this proposal deserve to be addressed with conceptual rigor.

This article, therefore, sets out to critically examine Lowery’s vision in light of the Austrian School of Economics, particularly the concepts developed by Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Fundamental contributions from classical liberalism are also incorporated, such as the reflections of Adam Smith, Frédéric Bastiat, and Alexis de Tocqueville. Drawing from praxeology, the theory of subjective value, liberal epistemology, and the philosophy of freedom, the article seeks to demonstrate that the proposed militarization of Bitcoin represents not only a rupture with its original nature, but also a threat to the spontaneous order from which it emerged.

Methodology

The methodology adopted in this article is divided into two complementary axes: the performative-strategic approach employed by Jason P. Lowery and the theoretical-critical analysis conducted from the standpoint of the Austrian School of Economics and classical liberal thought.

Jason P. Lowery’s book Methodology

Lowery adopts an unconventional methodology from the standpoint of traditional scientific standards. His text is explicitly strategic and performative, structured as a doctrinal proposal aimed at influencing United States national security policy. The work relies on military analogies, doctrinal reasoning, historical metaphors, and free interpretations of digital phenomena. It is a non-empirical argumentative construction, with strong rhetorical appeal and normative intent. The author himself acknowledges that Softwar is not a conventional scientific theory, but rather a new way of thinking about power in cyberspace, an attempt to reconceptualize Bitcoin as a tool of military deterrence and an instrument of national sovereignty. The book also aligns with the tradition of strategy as nonlinear logic, as formulated by Edward Luttwak, for whom “strategy is not linear logic; it often works through paradoxes” (Luttwak, 2001, p. 2). Therefore, Softwar should be understood as a doctrinal proposition rather than a scientific treatise, whose goal is to inaugurate a new deterrence paradigm based on decentralized energetic resistance.

Methodology of This Article

Given the non-scientific yet performative nature of the work analyzed, this article adopts a theoretical and critical methodology, structured as an essay with narrative review, as proposed by Minayo (2001), appropriate for qualitative studies that seek to understand complex social and epistemological phenomena. Booth, Colomb and Williams (2008) observe that this type of approach allows the researcher to build a cohesive argument by integrating different theoretical frameworks.

The focus lies on thematic analysis through conceptual axes, which directly engage with the foundations of the Austrian School of Economics, classical liberal philosophy, and political theory of freedom. The critique is conducted through categories such as spontaneous order, human action, decentralization, the epistemology of ignorance, and the ethical limits of authority.

The Austrian methodology, in particular, rejects mathematical modeling and positivist empiricism in favor of praxeology, the logical study of intentional human action. From this perspective, the article analyzes the moral, epistemological, and institutional implications of Lowery’s proposal without restricting itself to the instrumental logic of military strategy. The classical liberal tradition is also employed to highlight the risks of the symbolic militarization of a technology originally conceived as a defense against state coercion.

This methodological structure aims to ensure that the critique does not fall upon the Bitcoin protocol itself, whose technological merit is widely recognized, but rather upon the attempt to reinterpret it as a vector of coercive power. By distinguishing the protocol from the strategic proposition, the article seeks to preserve the ethical and libertarian core of the innovation, against the risk of its instrumentalization by centralizing power structures.

Critical Analysis by Thematic Axes

The Subversion of the Original Function: From Free Money to a Weaponized Asset

The first thematic axis of this analysis concerns the rupture between Bitcoin’s original proposal, as a decentralized, censorship-resistant digital currency, and its reinterpretation as a state strategic asset. Jason Lowery proposes that Bitcoin operate as a form of power projection within the cyber domain, transferring to the energy-informational field the logic of traditional military deterrence. According to him, by imposing physical costs, in the form of energy expenditure to validate blocks, Bitcoin becomes a “peaceful weapon” for containing threats in cyberspace.

This reading breaks with the foundational principles of the cryptocurrency. According to Menger (1983), money emerges as a spontaneous market process, derived from voluntary interactions between individuals who, in a decentralized manner, choose the most liquid goods as a medium of exchange. Lowery’s proposal inverts this logic by inserting Bitcoin into a strategic and state-controlled architecture of defense, shifting it from a good that arises from spontaneous order to an instrument subordinated to the reason of state.

Rothbard (1982, p. 45) affirms that “no man can acquire ownership of another man; he can only acquire ownership of previously unowned resources.” In attempting to transform a voluntary system of validation and consensus into a state deterrence military asset, the ethical principle of non-aggression and the libertarian nature of the protocol are compromised.

Moreover, Bitcoin as a technology was not designed for operational centralization, but for the dispersion of power. Mises (1949) warns that every form of central control tends toward inefficiency and oppression, precisely because it ignores dispersed knowledge and the subjectivity of economic agents. The attempt to redirect this technology toward military state purposes thus represents a perversion of its economic and ethical purpose.

Finally, Bastiat (2010) warned that the state tends to appropriate the productive actions of society under the pretext of protecting or organizing what, in truth, functions without it. The conversion of Bitcoin into a strategic asset controlled by armed forces is a contemporary example of this subtle appropriation, one that begins as doctrine and may end as imposition.

The Knowledge Problem: Spontaneous Orders and the Illusion of Control

The second thematic axis examines the knowledge problem as outlined by Hayek (1945), who argued that the primary limitation of any central planning lies in the impossibility of concentrating in a single mind or institution the dispersed knowledge present throughout society. Lowery, by proposing an integration between the Bitcoin protocol and national military strategies, disregards this fundamental principle.

The idea of subjecting a decentralized system, such as the Bitcoin blockchain, to the hierarchical logic of a state command chain contradicts the very nature of this innovation. As Hayek noted, “the economic problem of society is thus mainly one of rapid adaptation to changes in the particular circumstances of time and place” (Hayek, 1945, p. 524). Such adaptation is only possible in flexible and polycentric structures, not in monolithic ones like those of the military apparatus.

By converting Bitcoin into a regulated, institutionalized, and predictable instrument of warfare, Lowery falls into what Hayek called the “pretense of knowledge”, the illusion that all relevant variables can be mastered through instrumental reason. This illusion has proven tragic in numerous experiences of economic and political centralization. Applying it to the realm of digital money and cybersecurity merely changes the packaging of the error, not its essence.

Austrian epistemology, grounded in irreducible ignorance and human action as an interpretive category, suggests that living with uncertainty is a permanent condition. Trying to convert it into strategic predictability through the military domestication of an open protocol amounts to denying the complexity of the real world. Bitcoin is, above all, a reflection of that complexity, not a tool reducible to state control without losing its essence.

The Illusion of Technological Sovereignty: Bitcoin as a Tool of the State

The third thematic axis addresses the risk of assuming that a technology like Bitcoin can be integrated into state sovereignty mechanisms without undergoing structural distortion. Jason Lowery proposes that Bitcoin be incorporated into the armed forces as a kind of “peaceful brute force protocol,” embedded within national defense doctrine. This proposition raises a delicate question: to what extent is it possible to reconcile a voluntary and decentralized system with the coercive assumptions of the state apparatus?

From the Austrian standpoint, such an attempt is a contradiction. State sovereignty is founded on institutionalized coercion, the capacity to impose norms, taxes, and behaviors, while Bitcoin was conceived precisely as an antidote to that kind of central power. Hoppe (2001) argues that “the state is the only organization in society that imposes itself through systematic aggression,” which is why every initiative that seeks to absorb spontaneously developed goods tends to corrupt their original essence.

Lowery does not advocate the statization of the protocol, and Bitcoin’s functioning would preclude it, but rather proposes a symbolic and strategic instrumentalization of the network. This is a subtle form of purpose deviation that may undermine public trust in the protocol. Tocqueville (2005) warned that “democratic nations have an insatiable appetite for centralizing power,” including through the absorption of technologies that originated outside their domain. This dynamic can transform Bitcoin into a paradoxical instrument: born of freedom, converted into a tool of authority.

Technological sovereignty, in this context, proves to be an illusion. No digital architecture created to resist capture can remain unscathed when symbolically adopted as part of a coercive apparatus. The mere fact that the protocol comes to be understood, even rhetorically, as a state asset is enough to compromise its neutrality and its role as a real alternative to the monetary monopoly.

Ethical and Epistemological Implications of Symbolic Militarization

The fourth and final thematic axis considers the ethical and epistemological implications of reinterpreting Bitcoin as an extension of military force. Lowery’s proposal, although not involving direct control of the protocol, alters its symbolic and narrative nature. In doing so, it shifts the original intent of Satoshi Nakamoto’s Project, oriented toward freedom, privacy, and decentralization, into a state-centered, hierarchical, and militarized framework.

This re-signification is not neutral. According to Smith (1983), moral systems are based on shared expectations of justice, reciprocity, and trust. When a technology is associated with coercion, even indirectly, its ethical legitimacy is affected. Bitcoin, when linked to a military deterrence strategy, ceases to be merely a tool of freedom and becomes a symbolic vector of power, reconfiguring its social function.

From an epistemological standpoint, the risk is even greater. Lowery’s narrative suggests that global security, geopolitical coordination, and national defense problems can be resolved through a decentralized protocol, as if it were possible to convert an open and probabilistic system into a predictable strategic deterrent mechanism. This extrapolation constitutes a form of technical reductionism that ignores the limits of knowledge and human action.

The Austrian School has long warned against such naïve rationalism. Ludwig von Mises (1922) affirmed that “human action is necessarily uncertain” and that centralizing models fail precisely because they overlook the complexity of social phenomena. By projecting a military function onto Bitcoin, Lowery makes this classic mistake: trying to transform a tool of freedom into a predictable control mechanism.

Ultimately, the Softwar proposal can be read as an attempt at symbolic, though not technical, reappropriation of one of the greatest decentralized innovations of the 21st century. It is the task of philosophical and economic critique to highlight the risks of such a move and reaffirm the original values that inspired Bitcoin’s emergence: freedom, mutual trust, decentralization, and resistance to coercion.

Conclusion

Jason P. Lowery’s Softwar presents a bold attempt to reconceptualize Bitcoin as an instrument of power projection in the cyber domain. However, as this article has sought to demonstrate, the proposal entails conceptual, epistemological, and ethical distortions that cannot be overlooked. Although it does not constitute a scientific theory in the traditional sense, Softwar aims to create a new strategic framework for Bitcoin, a protocol originally designed as a defense against state coercion, by transforming it into a state tool of deterrence.

Through the lens of the Austrian School of Economics and classical liberal thought, we have shown that this transformation represents a substantial risk to spontaneous order, individual freedom, and the decentralized social process. Praxeology, as a method for analyzing intentional human action, reveals the inadequacy of any attempt to instrumentalize emergent phenomena, such as Bitcoin itself, within a centralizing military logic. From an epistemological standpoint, Lowery’s project suffers from the arrogance of total knowledge, ignoring the limits of human reason and the unintended consequences of state action.

More than a theoretical divergence, Softwar expresses a clash between worldviews: on one side, trust in bottom-up order, built by the free actions of individuals; on the other, faith in top-down imposition, guided by force and authority. It is here that the Austrian critique proves most relevant, reminding us that no technological innovation can, without risk, be stripped from its ethical and historical context to serve projects of power.

Even so, it is fair to recognize that Lowery’s effort opens a new frontier in the debate on cryptocurrencies, security, and sovereignty. His boldness in proposing a new strategic use for Bitcoin, however controversial, contributes to the maturation of the public discussion surrounding the future of this technology. Rejecting his project does not mean disregarding it, but rather confronting it with the instruments of reason, liberty, and moral responsibility.

We therefore conclude by reaffirming the original ethos of Bitcoin: freedom, decentralization, mutual trust, and resistance to coercion. Defending these principles means preserving not only the integrity of an innovative technology but also the ethical horizon in which it was conceived.

Referências

Bastiat, F. (2011). A lei. Instituto Ludwig von Mises Brasil. https://www.mises.org.br/Ebook.aspx?id=9

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press. Recuperado de https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo5954165.html

Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519-530. Recuperado de: https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html

Hoppe, H.-H. (2001). Democracy: The god that failed. Transaction Publishers. https://mises.org/library/democracy-god-failed

Lowery, J. P. (2023). Softwar: A novel theory on power projection and the national strategic significance of Bitcoin. Independently published. https://www.amazon.com.br/dp/B0BW24JQVK

Luttwak, E. N. (2001). Strategy: The logic of war and peace (Revised and enlarged ed.). Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674007031

Menger, C. (1983). Princípios de economia política. (Série Os Economistas). São Paulo: Abril Cultural.

Minayo, M. C. de S. (2001). Pesquisa social: teoria, método e criatividade (19th ed.). Vozes.

Mises, L. von. (1949). Human action: A treatise on economics. Yale University Press. https://mises.org/library/human-action-0

Rothbard, M. N. (1982). The ethics of liberty. Humanities Press. https://mises.org/library/ethics-liberty

Smith, A. (1983). A riqueza das nações (Vol. I–II). Abril Cultural. https://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html

Tocqueville, A. de. (2005). A democracia na América. Martins Fontes