Quote from: myrkul on April 08, 2013, 07:23:01 AM

Quote from: Rampion on April 08, 2013, 06:29:05 AM

Quote from: BlackSheep on April 08, 2013, 12:07:34 AM

I find it funny that this technology has attracted anti-capitalists.

Quote from: myrkul on April 08, 2013, 05:41:12 AM

Why the hell an anti-capitalist would be attracted to Bitcoin is beyond me.

Is not bad to work with the tools you are given - this is even more true with Bitcoin which is a powerful tool that empowers people, freeing them from the banker's slavery. Some anti-state libertarians would still vote in local elections to a candidate that could really improve what they believe fundamentals aspects of their immediate surroundings - corect?

Those with weak principles perhaps, or who are still deluded enough to think working within the system will get you anywhere.

The fact that I never voted in my life could mean that I agree with you. I do not have the guts to vote, it's a too filthy mechanism for me.

Nevertheless, I still think that "working inside the system" can be positive to achieve specific goals that make our day-by-day life better.

Quote from: myrkul on April 08, 2013, 07:23:01 AM

Quote from: Rampion on April 08, 2013, 06:29:05 AM

Quote from: BlackSheep on April 08, 2013, 12:07:34 AM

I find it funny that this technology has attracted anti-capitalists.

Quote from: myrkul on April 08, 2013, 05:41:12 AM

Why the hell an anti-capitalist would be attracted to Bitcoin is beyond me.

Is not bad to work with the tools you are given - this is even more true with Bitcoin which is a powerful tool that empowers people, freeing them from the banker's slavery. Some anti-state libertarians would still vote in local elections to a candidate that could really improve what they believe fundamentals aspects of their immediate surroundings - corect?

Those with weak principles perhaps, or who are still deluded enough to think working within the system will get you anywhere.

Quote from: Rampion on April 08, 2013, 06:29:05 AM

For left, inequality is an artificial construction of men
For right, inequality is a product of nature

This is the first I have ever heard or seen of this definition of right and left. But, under that definition, you're damn right I'm Right. Inequality is a product of nature. You said it yourself: Mankind is not all equal. Some are taller, some shorter, some smarter, some stronger. Some have a head for finance, some do not. Some are risk-takers, some are not. Generally, those who do not have a head for finance, or do not take risks, end up working for those who do.

I'm all for equalizing opportunities. That's why I'm anti-State. But when you try to equalize wealth, you only end up with fail. You'd need to continually steal from the more productive, and give to those less able. Then what are you doing, but trying to compensate for physical or mental inequalities? And eventually, the result is exactly the opposite of your goal. Opportunities are quashed, along with the drive to take them. Why bother, when anything you do to stick out from the crowd will just be cut off and siphoned to those who didn't take the opportunity you did? Meanwhile, the apparatus you've set up to equalize wealth has itself become the most powerful player in the game, and we're back to square one.

I had no doubt that you were Right, my friend. About "left and right" in politics I recommend you Norberto Bobbios Left & Right. In that book he analyzes how these two terms have evolved since their first use in 1789, and how the very key fundamental that remains constant is the distinct position on inequality.

And now a Wikipedia quote:

Quote

There is general consensus that the Left includes progressives, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, civil-libertarians (as in "social-libertarians"; not to be confused with the right's "economic-libertarians"), secularists, communists, and anarchists,[5][6][7][8] and that the Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, capitalists, neoliberals, economic-libertarians (not to be confused with the left's "civil-libertarians"), social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, Nazis (including neo-Nazis) and fascists.[9]

So, according to Wikipedia (which is not a source I would 100% commit to) you would be considered an "economic-libertarian". For historical reasons I prefer the word "liberal" or "economic liberal", even if I know that the word "liberal" is associated to the left in US - not so much in Europe.