Yes, but I reserve every right to call out others' moral contradictions. If you believe in capitalism, own it. Love government.

As an employer, you'd assume that they could, or that you were doing them a favor, just to make yourself feel better about governing them.

So, you love government?

Assuming that that is true, and not a statement of capitalistic delusion, then you aspire, as a capitalist naturally does, to rule over others and thereby profit.

My personal life isn't relevant to the discussion. For all you know, I am a capitalist arguing the anarchist position just for fun.

Now, capitalistic entities control all the usable territory. Even if there was a region free of capitalist authority, I would have to abandon my home and endure a state of exile to live there. That I, or anyone, might endure the status of an employee on the threat of exile (best case) does not qualify as a free choice.

Why couldn't mutual banks issue paper money backed with bitcoins?

What if he spent all of his time painting instead of producing food from his labor (farming, foraging, hunting...)? What if he had no place to do so? Now he must trade his painting for food or the means to get food. He has no capital with which to access a market that pays as highly as that which the gallery owners have access to. Now a gallery owner can pay him less than the fair value of the painting and be his boss. With her capital, she puts herself in a position of authority over him.

Obviously, if no one will pay anything for his paintings because they suck, we have a different situation.

Well, are you a human being capable of rational thought or a capitalistbot stuck in a profit loop?

Then why are you content with the idea of employing someone and being his boss?

Yes, a thief.

Yes. The gallery owner abused the fact that she owns a gallery and has access to a special market to steal as much as $4900 from the artist. However, capitalists believe that she has the rightful authority to do so. Now, the gallery owner probably did some work and had some expenses, but not 98% of that which both parties contributed to the production and sale of of the painting. Therefore, she does not deserve as much as 98% of the earnings associated with producing and selling a painting. The gallery owner has no right to take advantage of the fact that the artist, because he lacks capital, does not have access to a market that will support as high price as the the one she has access to via her greater capital. However, if the gallery owner indicates that she wants to share the earnings fairly and the artists opts for a smaller share, he will have freely gifted some of his fair share to her.

Of course some folks might not agree that theft is morally wrong. Then we have to use another argument.

You assume that the artist could have freely chosen not to sell the painting.

What if people chose whether to denominate their pledges in bitcoins or USD?

I think only when they initially sell the stock.

How is it incorrect?

Any capitalist would do this, not just "smart" ones.

No. As I said, "Natural Law" is an irrelevant digression.

I don't blame you. The capitalist delusion is very strong. I experienced it very strongly.

Agreement doesn't preclude capitalism. Capitalists often exploit other capitalists, but they agree that it is a non-exploitative relationship.

Capitalists believe that they have the right use their surplus to maintain a position of power over others.

It's not capitalistic to maintain a surplus as long as you do not make people pay too much in exchange for it. That's why rent, employment, and usury are so exploitative. The worker will keep paying, but he will never own the shelter, the workplace, or the borrowed capital.

Humans can choose to starve and not procreate. And they do from time to time. That such actions might qualify as an evolutionary dead doesn't have to matter to whoever commits them if he doesn't want them too. If I recall ninth grade biology though, evolution typically occurs on a population scale. A few individuals opting out from squirting DNA at each other probably won't matter much, but I digress.

No, I only assumes that humans are capable of making intelligent decisions, not that we always do, of course.

But individual bacterium do not exhibit authority over each other. In fact, they invariably share genetic information and cooperatively form bio-films. Behold, solidarity. Seriously though, Natural Law is irrelevant. Just because I can rightfully consume the energy of a plant or animal, that they contain or produce, doesn't mean I can rightfully consume yours, even if I can afford it.

I think the word fiat implies that some government or institution officially accepts a certain thing at a given rate. Prior to Nixon's order detaching the USD from gold, I guess you could have called gold a fiat currency. Now it is only a fiat currency in Utah. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

As long as you do not seek authority over me we're cool. However, you seem to be content with the idea of being my employer (for the sake of argument). That is a position of authority and I don't like it. Unfortunately, I rarely have a choice when it comes to avoiding authority in this capitalist society of ours. For the record, I do condone gun ownership as long as their users do not use them to help impose authority over others.

I see no reason why the inhabitants of a society in which the majority of inhabitants represent all the flavors of anarchism cannot coexist without imposing authority on one another and therefore forming states. As long as capitalists--and capitalists are never anarchists--are in the minority, everything will work just fine. People will have disagreements, but I don't see why they'll have to rely on authority to settle them.

Really? How is the behavior of a school of fish relevant? They have little to no power to disobey their instincts. Humans do. They don't mind cannibalism. Humans can. We have evolved the ability to make and follow our own rules. So I don't see any harm in members of society mutually agreeing not to capitalistically eat each other. As such, anarchism seems entirely natural as a human behavior, not that it matters.

As for a natural system that exhibits anarchistic behavior: bacteria. Of course, bacteria are not people, so this example is irrelevant. "Natural Law" remains a crumby argument for just about anything.

Please do not misquote me. I had written as follows:

I've made some edits, in bold, for grammar and clarity. Feel free to critique my complete statement.

Employers certainly do tax their employers. The employees pay the employer a portion of that which they produced with their labor in exchange for the conditional use of his property. The citizens pay the government a portion of that which they produced with their labor in exchange for the conditional use of its property. Same thing.

And you have to get all of these things, or the tools and resources to make these things, from a capital holder. And the more desperate you are, the more of that which you produce, can he take from you. So, depending on the force at his disposal, you can either submit or flee, and that is not a voluntary decision. It is a coerced decision.

You give the Amish too much credit. Within their community, they have their own hierarchical problems in addition to the exploitation they face from the outside world.

And capitalism is just monarchy.

He gained at the expense of others.

An the upper castes capitalistically profit on the backs of the lower ones.

The promise is that you're allowed to use some types of exploitation to get ahead. There's no punishment for taking the product of other people's hard work as long as you do it in a certain way and the people you exploit will get punished for trying to take it back.

And he issued the emancipation proclamation to mitigate the Confederate threat to his profit, not to abolish an evil institution.

Bill Gates was simply lucky enough to attend one of the few schools that had a computer. He subsequently used intellectual property too protect his profits. The amount of hard work he ever did can't possibly, justifiably entail such wealth and power over others. Jobs isn't any better.

More probably, hard work goes unrequited.

Anarchy, wherein most people expect to own the product of their labor.

Capitalism and government are inseparable. Capitalism cannot exist without government. There is no purpose for government without capitalism.

People deserve more than to just try and survive.

Whether it's natural, whatever that means, or not, capitalism is a harmful behavior.

No, you misunderstand. When you produce something from your labor. It belongs to you. That does not mean you have a right to withhold your surplus from someone until they offer something in exchange which took relatively more of work to produce. Capitalists presume that they do have this right, and they create government to protect it.

You are distorting what chodpada said. Your ownership of something does not give you the right to exploit others with their lack of ownership of that something.

That is capitalism and government.

Why can't people just farm on unused land without a government setting aside crumby reservations for them?

You and the other workers still have a useful factory in which to build and sell something else. Oh wait, you live in a capitalist society and had to borrow that $30 million from a usurer. Now he owns the factory and you have to grovel before some other capitalist for the privilege working for a wage with which you will try to pay off the usurer's interest.

So let the factory's builders own it. They can sell it to the workers who will pay them with a certain amount of that which they will produce, equal to the labor associated with building the factory.

Those socialists and communists believe that the state is necessary. Perhaps they don't realize that the state is a capitalist institution.

This is because capitalism persists amongst the citizenry in a state capitalist society.

Capitalism: get other people to work for you.

All these terrible things happen because capitalists use them to make profit.

And so do employers force their rules on employees and tax them for the privilege.

If I don't like it, leave? Indeed, capitalists can potentially coerce me into abandoning my home.

Yes, but it doesn't have to.

And so too can a new king eventually ruin his father's kingdom, making room for a more coercive newcomer.

And Bill Gates and Carlos Slim once grovelled at the feet of the John D. Rockefeller. Get real. No one ever took turns with him. He got rich, stayed rich, and died rich. All the people he exploited are dead too. They have no recourse and nor will we against our exploiters so long as we tolerate capitalism.

This process is a fluke at best. You can rarely produce anything useful without the consent of your capitalist exploiters.

Wat? How does one naturally not get angry when someone takes something from you that you labored to produce and gives back something of less value? I think that that such a victim must have fallen for a trick called capitalism. He thinks that by capitalism, he will later take more and give back less. Of course, if he isn't already born into such status, he'll have to rely on luck and coercion to achieve it. What a miserable way to live.

How is capitalism not monarchy, wherein capital, and all the power that comes with it, passes from heir to heir?

An interesting article, but just another example of capitalism at work. Those poor workers were just paid wages in the form of that which the factory owner told them to produce.

Also, the Soviet Union stopped existing in 1991. The article mentions no events prior to 1993. Not that it would matter, because the state paid the soviets' wages.

Thanks for your accurate explanation, chodpaba.

There are also people who think it's a cool idea, but probably a scam.

I haven't told many people, so these statements of mine don't come from much of a sample set.

Well, I only ever mention Bitcoin to people when talking about financial stuff, how awesome the internet is, or when I know the person very well and they may possibly care. It feels like how I used to talk about private bittorrent trackers to my friends. They're either amazed or they look at me funny.

Why don't you just verify your Paypal account?

People could also abandon wages and take ownership of that which they produce by their labor. Perhaps bitcoin will facilitate outrage against the capitalist wage system.