I also hope everyone appreciates the irony of someone defending anarchism by posting a diagram in the form of the ancient universally recognized symbol of hierarchy. 😂😂
I hope you're just feigning ignorance here. Taoism and Hegelianism are phisophical friends. And I assume you're familiar with the caloquialism "cuck". I don't use words for no reason.
Which is why it's confusing to see this idealistic, almost orthodox anarchism posted up on bitcoin.com. It has very little to do with crypto currencey imo.
I see anarchy principles as fundamental to bitcoin. starting with the genesis block. "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
Free market monetary policy may be fundamental for some kinds of anarchy, but not the other way around. Eg. the early USA - not an anarchy by any means. Constitutional republic.
you could consider small slices of the market & call them anarchy (well more anarchic than now). eg. Schooling was do whatever you want. biz was less restricted with less recourse.
This is why you gotsta know philosophy! This Hegelian synthesis vortex of ever increasing confusion of language(as in the SJW queer scene) is the same end-goal fetishized by anarchists
By diversity maximalism I mean hyper-individualism, which is the inevitable end to ever increasing diversity. Basically a society where no one has anything in common with anyone else.
interesting you so increasing these distinctions leads back to individualism. just saw the same argument this morning somewhere else. interesting thought!
A big thing that frustrates me is - anarchists think that somehow countries/nations will be eliminated by free markets. That sort of diversity maximalism is the same value as socialism
Depends on your definition of anarchy. If you mean fewer bosses/leaders/authorities I'd say no. Bitcoin isn't getting rid of those people, it merely is a hard check on corruption.
know some companies (eg Valve) have tried "flat" organizational structures & it becomes flat in name only. everyone there knows who's in charge & who not to bother.
idk it might. we'll have to see. dont feel strongly either way. if corruption is kept in check & the system works well & maintains freedom I'm cool with it.
A stateless money would help! Really though, you gotta have a populace that recognizes and highly values inalienable individual rights and the corresponding responsibilities.
Nope that doesn't work because (the religious belief of) class consciousness values the group higher than individuals. Conversely, in Christianity you have a name that only God knows.
The problem is that the only mechanism to keep that devotion to "good" that's worked so far has been devotion to a higher power(that's explicitly not interested in political power).
That is mostly an assumption. Even societies without a higher power have a working morality. Eve animals seem to have basic morals. orals likely come before belief in a higher power.
yeah... interesting to see what happens in more atheistic countries (EU). Eastern countries (eg Japan?) dont always have a god. but do have collectivist/in group leanings.
Idiot "economists" who try to use Japan as an example of how to do things IGNORE the fact that it's a mono-ethnic state with it's border completely surrounded by a big beautiful wall.
if your hypothesis about religion is true, then cultures with less religion should be less cohesive/trusting/successful. idk if Japan is a good example, just what came to mind.
Also, currently in Shinto religion the gods are higher than the emperor. That was the huge gift that WWII gave them. Losing that war proved that no human is above the gods.
I do not think people are honest because they are christian. They’re honest because they have a reputation irl or online. Ebay ex, sellers must to have reputations near 100%.
Yeah, Japan has a strong social contract, probably due to their public school system(which are basically military schools) and a thousand years history of rice farming.
So the spouses of the author and/or all anarchists literally have sex with other people? Or is the literal definition not the *reason* you used that word?