I can. American right-wing propaganda machine redefined the word "libertarian" for clueless Americans, to suit their agenda.

Which is why the word "libertarian" only means what you think it means in America, and only to a small subset of heavily indoctrinated, mostly young and white, mostly males.

By the way, learn about your beloved Ayn Rand.

That depends on their culture. In a neo-feudal society which is governed primarily by violence and only secondly by reason, the majority mindset of people tends to be fearful and selfish.
In some - perhaps distant - future society which is governed solely by reason, the majority mindset will tend toward compassion, as that is the hidden truth of human nature.

There are some things you should probably know about human violence. Mainly, it's been steadily decreasing as we socially evolve toward our truest, most natural compassionate selves.

Related: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/28/science/researchers-trace-empathy-s-roots-to-infancy.html

Because compassion is the noblest and highest form of wisdom. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Homo Sapiens are neuro-biologically wired for compassion.

Related: http://www.democracyjournal.org/16/6740.php?page=all


This is Sao Paulo, Brazil. It's a little glimpse of your "Libertarian Utopia" (read: wage-slave dystopia), capitalists:



Here in the USA, we're well on our way to Sao Paulo style inequality. Fortunately for wage slaves everywhere, we'll probably have a revolution before we get there.

There is a reason the word "libertarian" means something totally different if you go anywhere else in the world and talk to anyone who isn't a clueless white male American who stopped reading books after he finished Atlas Shrugged in 9th grade.

Also jetpack and anti-gravity boots, cause this cat is from the fucking FUTURE.

You are forgetting that the value of a dollar can (and does) fluctuate just as easily as the value of a Bitcoin...

Yeah, sure, just like it's always been throughout history. The elite are and always have been the most VALUABLE members of society, right?

Certainly not the serfs toiling in the fields, growing food for everyone... certainly not the masons buildings the houses and castles... certainly not the soldiers fighting and dying to protect the kingdom / nation. Certainly not the scientists discovering everything that has made modern life possible..



It's always been the wealthy elite upon which society has depended for survival.

 

lol iknowright.

Wouldn't want to be exchanging bits of mathematical information without governmental permission! 

The fact that you would dare use the word EQUALITY when discussing capitalism, is how I know without any doubt that you are an economic fundamentalist exactly as I have described.

"Equality", in capitalism, looks something like this.

And this.

and this:

You should be more careful when using words like, "always".

You think you believe this more firmly than the nobles of the feudal age believed in the eternity of the divine right of kings? The infallibility of their Lord, God?



Consider that today - a mere few centuries later - the typical internet-using, freethinking young person finds the concept of god to be downright ridiculous

Think on it, rub those 3 braincells you were given together, see if you can't come up with some spark of insight.

Some point in the post-capitalism future, I imagine.

Are you an economic fundamentalist?

For all you white male American "libertarians",

Anarchism and capitalism are diametrically opposed ideologies, incompatible at the most basic level.

Is “anarcho”-capitalism a type of anarchism?

Anyone who has followed political discussion on the net has probably come across people calling themselves “libertarians” but arguing from a right-wing, pro-capitalist perspective. For most people outside of North America, this is weird as the term “libertarian” is almost always used in conjunction with “socialist” or “communist” (particularly in Europe and, it should be stressed, historically in America). In the US, though, the Right has partially succeeded in appropriating the term “libertarian” for itself. Even stranger is that a few of these right-wingers have started calling themselves “anarchists” in what must be one of the finest examples of an oxymoron in the English language: “Anarcho-capitalist”!!!

Arguing with fools is seldom rewarded, but to let their foolishness to go unchallenged risks allowing them to deceive those who are new to anarchism. Here we will show why the claims of these “anarchist” capitalists are false.

Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist and any “anarchism” that claims otherwise cannot be part of the anarchist tradition. It is important to stress that anarchist opposition to the so-called capitalist “anarchists” do not reflect some kind of debate within anarchism, as many of these types like to pretend, but a debate between anarchism and its old enemy, capitalism. In many ways this debate mirrors the one between Peter Kropotkin and Herbert Spencer (an English capitalist minimal statist) at the turn the 19th century and, as such, it is hardly new.

(...)

Are “anarcho”-capitalists really anarchists?

In a word, no. While “anarcho”-capitalists obviously try to associate themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word “anarcho” or by calling themselves “anarchists” their ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism.

As a result, any claims that their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist tradition or movement are false.

“Anarcho”-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist — you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As “anarcho”-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.

"...Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love,
love for one's country which is not part of one's love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship.”
-Eric Fromm, The Sane Society

This is the 21st century, folks. The plain fact is that humanity can do better than capitalism.


Yours in compassion and solidarity,

World Citizen Beliathon

Chinese Bitcoin Exchanges Submit a Joint Letter to the New York Department of Financial Services

https://vip.btcchina.com/page/notice/?id=17en

ahahaha amazing.

Yeah, I guess you could say I'm probably a little bit addicted to reading about and discussing Bitcoin. What of it?

I can slice my own bread with any sharp object.

I can't, however, be my own bank without Bitcoin.

Thanks, Satoshi.

This post is bad and you should feel bad. And it belongs in speculation, since the only thing the article is discussing is price movement of BTC.

I have this fun hobby of finding absolutely shit threads, and then adding a dose of reality and wit to make them winners.

I love this analogy, it's perfect. The farmer is the nation-state, and the hen represents any threat to the nation's sovereignty and/or monopoly over money creation.

Bitcoin is one such threat. If the farmer (nation) could chop off Bitcoin's head, he would. The Chinese farmer already tried. So did the Russian farmer.

Now the New York farmer (Lawsky) is trying to cut off the hen's head, and he will fail too. Because there's just one small problem with your analogy, friend.

Bitcoin is not a hen. It's a Hydra.



And in this myth, the Hydra eats all the farmers.

Intelligent person detected.

because:



and:

Bitcoin's progression is normal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHUPPYzzZrI