Fiat money has purpose of settling debt to the banks given that all fiat is someone's loan. All paper fiat is debt owed to central banks by the commercial banks All digital fiat is debt owed to commercial banks by individuals and companies. In the same time, all paper fiat is debt owed to holders by the central banks. And all digital fiat is debt owed to holders by commercial banks. If you don't believe me, check the accounting books of the commercial and central banks. So, fiat holders are debt owners. Their ownership is valuable because it has the ability to redeem the debt of the banks, individuals and companies.
Translation:
"
Tools of subjugation and oppression are valuable to those in power. Everyone should be grateful for the opportunity to march to the beat of the Bankster's drums. It's downright unconscionable that any of you should want to adopt a system which cannot be used to control the masses in the same way fiat can." 
If that's your idea of "value", you can keep it, thanks.
Also, have you now abandoned all effort to maintain the pretense that you're interested in purchasing Bitcoin? I get the sense that you're possibly not a fan of personal freedom and would happily attempt to talk people out of choosing it wherever you might be able to. Fortunately, you're not very convincing.
We are talking about business here, not social oppression and conspiracy theories. In that sense, sure, I will keep my ownership of valuable resource that can be used for redeeming debt of individuals, companies and banks. This resource ensures that as long there's debt, these entities will trade me the things I can live off of. And that's not oppression. That's business. I am oppressing no one. It's not me who's responsible for someone's debt. I only invested in it.
You, on the other hand, are free to live in faith that someone will voluntarily give you things you can live off of for the number that you hold. But, that's nor business. That's utopia.
What happened, Antithesis? Do we now choose whose mouth we want to shut? You respond only to what's interesting you, in this case franky, who, as always, keeps writing walls of text until he's proved right. Consider re-checking these:
And what did people do before the introduction of such system? Weren't they developing mediums of exchange?
So we're just glossing over the part where it's not actually possible for everyone to repay their loans?
[...]
The translation takes the cake.
I tend to ignore off topic stuff.
