I'm an anarchist myself but unless I'm writing for a collective, non profit and with political orientation, I'd like to be paid fairly according to the profits made. Since I'm not provided of a balance sheet, then I'd require a fair pay according to my living standards. And I definitely don't live for 20$ per page (that's about 500 words) for a economical-political article that would take 2 hours to research and write (OP asked for originality).

Then again as everyone likes. Sorry for budging in.

I don't really care, I don't even know how to check it, I despise facebook personaly. But it's a business site, top likes are from business and people in the industry and we do sell worldwide anyway. And let's face it, it's the number that counts and it's a good deal for that.

Got serviced almost instantly, a few more likes to reach the 1k, all within a few hours. Nice one

I see all these vacancies for writers but seriously... how do you expect to get professional quality with those prices? Current rate is 150€ per 1,000 words for a half-decent professional writer!

I mean ok, when bitcoin reaches 10,000 $ or €, then yeah, you can offer 0.01 per article, but till then it's plain theft.

That's why there shouldn't be a system. Voluntary participation in communal programmes is the way forward, decentralisation to the point of the individual, kinda like bitcoin.


There's no such a thing as anarcho-capitalism, it's an oxymoron. Capitalism needs the state, thus there's no anarchy.

What makes you think that current taxation is wisely spend and that in order to have a minimum income it'd be necessary to raise taxes? Just by curtailing the tax avoidance that's taking place on the top companies you got your problem solved. I mean it's kinda sad to see people that are apparently ok with the idea of funding nukes through their tax money but are quite resistant towards any  social program.

Regarding the "as long as s/he get's a job" attitude. Who holds the bargaining position when it comes to a job? Why should the grandchild of a landowner who got his property by a mad king be in the favour of the state (guarantee of property)?

I think you're confusing society with government here. You mention society, and at the same time ban and imprisonment but since society is not the one that decides neither to ban nor to imprison I think that government(s) is the proper word.

However, society's role is even more important than the one governments can play regarding cryptos simply by accepting them or not.

I'm fully in favour of the OP's idea. I mean the state/government (and society since it's the official representative) is just a servant of the upper social strata, mostly as protector of property. Hence, if the state has enough money to pay cops to suppress the population or just plain beat up people and masquerade that as "protection from criminals", wage wars to promote special interests, etc etc, then they should be able to fund a living standard income. Right?

I'm really looking forward to the day that ground-root political movements learn about cryptos and their abilities. I'd dare say that a lot of secessions that will take place in the 21st century (and there will be a lot) will be using one.

Funny nobody mentions penicillin, a lot of us might not even have been born without it. Sometimes the little things change the world far more than the big ones.

I'd vote for the Pirate party if it didn't get involved with the Greens who in my perception are just environmentally friendly capitalists. Ended up voting for the Socialist Party (GUE-NGL). But I wouldn't say there's anything like a wasted vote, the system is rigged anyway. Much better to be an active citizen daily and exercise your political power along with your co-citizens than participate in this faded republic.

Amen 
I think he also took softball coaching 

I couldn't agree more. Freedom cannot be contained, the old adage "your freedom stops where someone else's begins" is completely wrong, since if freedom stops, it's not freedom in the first place. It should actually read "your freedom begins where someone else's begins".


There is no freedom in harming others, so there's no limitation of freedom there. This distortion has been brought forward mostly by right-wing philosophers who had no idea what freedom is, For them it was the fear of losing their privileges mostly

As in a sense of determinism, no, why should you have more income by just getting older? Obviously you're more dependent on medical expenses but that is a social issue.

Most people get more income as they grow older because they have invested in themselves either by furthering their educational levels or through work experience.

Replying to the OP, all of those theories opperate with half truths. A common propaganda tool used quite effectively by right-wing fascists and political charlatans of all colours. Most of those theories are made by either people stupid enough to understand the modern nation-state and it's operation (aka "it's neo-libaral capitalism stupid") or by people with a hidden political agenda.

I can see why you'd say that, however this has proven not to be so. Have a look at the Trap by Adam Curtis, it will very well explain how disturbed notions amplified Hobbes's philosophy in order to create that missconception.