The point of all these questions is simply that what contracts network of contracts of right to use arise should be decided through voluntary contracts, rather than a centralized idelological conception of which things are and are not property.
Post by twetch#21877
The irony is that when it’s voluntary even @2284 likes monetizing his words, and even the anarchocapitalists love the fixed price set at zero on Wikipedia.
What the chain says
- Block
- 635 482
- Time
- 2020-05-18T16:47:18Z
- Signer
- 17ZU3LUhcDYvBDEmuyHJFYaquCYZUDi6fg
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#21877
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
17ZU3LUhcDYvBDEmuyHJFYaquCYZUDi6fg VerifiedReplies (6)
I'd gladly pay for a wikipedia that is more transparent, balanced and less ideological.
Micropayments will hopefully get us there.
Completely agree about voluntary contracts.
In fact, if it's not voluntary it's not a contract.
Like the social 'contract'.
i'll buy that for 10c thank you very much! 😋
I hope you get there whether I find such a resource useful or not. You probably can't blame the lack of such a service on the government that easily though. So anarchocapitalism has more communism in it than people expect - not tons, but some. No biggie.
Well, anarchism and communism have in common that they want a stateless society... Communists intend to get there by more centralization of power (more state, socialism), anarchists by decentralization of power (less and less state).
I don't blame the absence of a neutral wikipedia on the state at all. Rather on the fact that before bitcoin it was impossible to monetize information directly on the internet via micropayments, instead indirectly via advertising, data-mining or donations.