You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Reason that BITCOIN Has Value is Because... + get 100SP delegated to you by commenting~
bitcoin has no intrinsic value. It, like all forms of currency, has value because people pretend it does
bitcoin has no intrinsic value. It, like all forms of currency, has value because people pretend it does
yes and its high now because of the demand of how company and big business is implanting it into their system because of a mass public adoption of online users
I would vote for you, but last time I didn't agree with anarchyhasnogods, so do you think a anarcho-socialist is a thing, do you think it's adequate to both be for and against state power, how do you think that'd balance out
let me sum it up.
"Anarcho capitalism" is not a thing, the most common form of anarchist is socialist
so social anarchism is socialsim? and anarcho capitalism is capitalism, then why are you throwing labels around :D I'd say both aren't a thing, they are derivatives of old systems that don't work or do work and you are just arguing nonsense ;D well I wouldn't impose on anyone anything, so that must make me an anarchist, w/e I'm a volunterist-anarcho-capitalist-libertrerian-free thinker, I don't get why you label and go into the left-right dichotomy, I'm not sure I'm either of the ones above or some of the unlisted ones.
I do agree that the current systems are flawed, but that has always been the case, sorry for getting caught up in this, but just like you I think that anarcho socialism can't exist without a state either. Anarcho capitalism could however if people adhere to values, social and economic, you could have private ownership without a state, because you have a community and respect between peers, if there is no community each of the peers is free to do whatever they choose with the goods and services they have, therefore free trade, of course you'd need the non-aggression in practice since it would get feudal otherwise, I'm not sure what your value and views are on the topic, so I have nothing to say.
"anarcho" capitalism is not anarchist. Private ownership of the means of production requires a state.
The first self-proclaimed anarchist, the one who essentially defined it, was anti-capitalist in every way.
read up on words before you use them to sound cool.
damn I wrote such a cool comment, don't really wanna redo it. Basically I am cool I care about what makes sense, bicker about left and rightisms. it's a belief system at the end of the day, I'm not a political fan I just like schools of thought, nothing else, thanks for the hint I will read when I have time as it is there is enough on my plate. Plus politics is a side track for me, I do have interest in it and history tho.
Cheers ;)
social anarchy is not for state power. Private ownership of the means of production can't exist without a state. Social anarchy is based on collective control of the means of production