"computer money invented to buy drugs." -- come on.
I get that the New Yorker is middlebrow yuppie polemic, but they could at least put a modicum of effort into an attempt at satire.
Then, if you move on to look at the Bitcoin Talk forums, you'll see they're infested not only by libertarians, but crazy right wing gold-bug types.
Maybe as bitcoin goes more mainstream, you can claim it outgrew these sensibilities, but you can't ignore the disproportionate number of rabid anti-government types who are the early adopters.
A technology cannot possess sensibilities.
But there are plenty of people willing to assert otherwise.
The core people who worked on the algorithmic components that form the basis of Bitcoin, are not only sympathetic to Libertarianism, but are sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism.
I used to be heavily involved in cypherpunks myself (search for "cromwell" in the cyphernomicon, see my Anonymous Remailer stuff http://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=85281458701690&w=2 or search Cromwell here http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/papers/privacy-compcon97-www... to see my note on the Decense Project, one of the very first anonymizing web proxies), and I used to be a rabid libertarian myself and I can tell you from personal experience it's not an exaggeration to say where the sympathies of the creators are.
I personally developed cryptotools for anonymous double blind mailing lists (neither the recipients of the list nor the list itself know each other's addresses), shamir sharing, and distributed publishing, on the basis I believed I was defeating government surveillance and censorship. At the time, there was a vague notion that untraceable anonymity, absolutely secure communication, and digital cash would permit the creation of an online world which was 100% free of government.
An appeal to personal experience does not constitute a refutation of the assertion that a technology cannot possess sensibilities. Nor does it provide evidence that the majority of the present Bitcoin community shares such beliefs -- asserting otherwise constitutes a fallacy of improper generalization.
It's quite possible that the views most frequently articulated on Bitcoin Talk, etc. are those of a vocal minority.
And since the early adopters and pioneers of a community often mirror the philosophy of their founders, it is highly probable that the bitcoin community is overrepresented with libertarians.
That this seems surprising to you or you're so defensive over it seems strange. It seems pretty self evident. As if you found a community of gun owners producing crypto-guns, and were shocked to find they were NRA members too.
I don't, and I don't think it's appropriate to make generalizations unless one has access to a sufficient body of empirical evidence. So I'm not making generalizations.
With that in mind, none of your opinions strike me as self-evident in an objective/empirical sense. Perhaps they're self-evident to you, but that doesn't make them the basis for sound argumentation.
It's unclear to me how I might have come across as defensive with respect to your comments; I merely don't find what you're saying to be convincing.