Mister Mister

Have any of you heard of this? It's an idea for a kind of local/alternative currency issued by local businesses. Doesn't require ownership of precious metals, massive computing power for bitcoins, or political action. It has successfuly been put into use in Ithaca, New York; Breckenridge, Colorado; and other towns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rPcxZboeK0http://mtnhours.com/ The premise as I understand, is that money/currency is defined not as a commodity, as the Austrians and classical economists would have, but as a contract, a promise on future labor. For example, instead of trading your cheese for my wheat, you agree to give me cheese in return for a promise on my future wheat to be produced several months from now, by written or spoken word. You could then even trade my future wheat to others. Other examples of this kind of currency would be tickets, frequent flyer miles, or coupons. So in the same way that a business can issue coupons, they issue a more flexible coupon, which can purchase any of their products according to prices. Then several businesses agree to recognize each other's "coupons", which have now become a kind of barterscript or currency. They form a committee together to regulate how new currency is created, and as long as they don't issue more than they can redeem in goods or services, there is no problem with creating more money; in the same way that printing a new ticket for a concert does not devalue other tickets, and is not fraudulent so long as you don't create more tickets than seats. Once the local currency can purchase everything necessary to life, you have a sustainable system which is practical and beneficial for all. So the basic idea is that money should be issued by producers, as opposed to banks or governments who do not produce anything of value. Also, I think there is advantage to paper money by "fiat" or currency as a contract, in that it does not take resources from elsewhere just to serve as a medium of exchange. Gold has value as jewelry and in electronics, which become more expensive if gold is being used as currency. Bitcoin requires massive computing power to produce which could be put to other uses in society. Also these things are somewhat exclusive and require expensive and specific capital, whereas what is being promoted here is that anyone can create money, in the same way that anyone can create contracts. He also has some ideas about usury being fraudulent, in that it creates debts or contracts which are mathematically unpayable, ultimately leading to the seizure of REAL assets by banks and governments, through manipulating their fake money. I understand that if ALL money is created and lent at interest, it creates a ponzi scheme, but I don't see that if you have sound money, lending at interest is necessarily fraud. As long as some of the money is being used to purchase goods/services or being saved, if some of it is lent at interest it does not create this situation where some debts are necessarily unpayable. Also, my understanding of the Austrian concept of interest is that it is based on time preference. If I buy a factory from you, I will want to buy it for less than I expect to ultimately be able to make through the factory. In my example where I trade your cheese for my future grain, you will tend to give me a better deal for grain now than in the future. Anyway I'd like to hear what some of you who are more rigorous economists than me think.

It is also worth noting that one of the reasons lawyers, like doctors, are so expensive, is because of the licensing racket, and the strict state-defined education requirements. In Lysander Spooner's day, all you had to do was apprentice with a lawyer for two years, and even then he had issues with the licensing requirements. It is likely that, in order to mediate disputes, write and interpret contracts, have good language skills, etc, will not require 8 years of school or cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to be a competent lawyer in a free society.

yes, I've found that philosophy tends to lift the veils on most of the drivel in popular culture and reveal it for what it is. I find myself automatically asking what are people's motivations - the athletes, the fans, the actors, the writers, the producers, and of course the audience. But there is some good art out there.

haha yes, this marketing is obviously an appeal to insecurity, I think you picked the wrong forum, it won't work on most people here. as I understand, science has a hard time defining intelligence, creativity, genius, etc. I think human consciousness is still the final frontier.

Yes I don't understand what Peter is talking about 85% of the time - and I think I'm a fairly intelligent and articulate person. It sounds like he could be talking about something really interesting and meaningful, but I've also known some schizophrenics who were the same way. I am interested in what he is saying about a gaming mentality which he makes reference to several times but never defines. I've seen a few of the Zeitgeist movies and there are a lot of interesting ideas but I'm still not quite sure what is the premise, what are the ethics, what it is they think we should be doing to transition to the Robot Luxury City of the Future. I think the fundamental issue in this debate has to do with psychology. Peter keeps saying things like "we persist with this system based on scarcity and competition". Or "we subject people to the market" or "the market has at its core ethic a mindset of gaming". He seems to think that people are motivated by "capitalist philosophy" and if we can change those ideas (not sure how he proposes doing this), we can change human nature/society. Listening to this show, and understanding a little about praxeological school of economics has given me a far more realistic/functional understanding of human nature and motivation.

Hi I just wanted to share some experiences I've had and see if anyone can relate, or has some thoughts about it.I just had a chat on Facebook with someone who I've only met twice in real life, in which he confessed to me that his adopted parents were pedophiles. I didn't have the stomach to ask further details, but it was pretty obvious what was going on. The conversation started out with him telling me he has paranoia to talk on the internet about bad things the government does out of fear of being targeted. He went on to list reporters, politicians, and so on, that have been killed or died mysteriously after challenging the ruling elite. Then he asked if I thought it would change the world to create a class where children could talk about these issues openly. I started to get the picture of what he was really talking about. I tried giving little hints, like "my feeling is that the way people see the world or human nature is really how they see themselves or the environment in which they grew up". Then when it became clear to me, I put it back to him, saying something like "you think children need to be taught that there are bad people in the world who will hurt them, and you are worried about someone hurting you for telling the truth. what happened to YOU when you told the truth as a child?" Then it came out. I suggested that he talk to his adopted parents about the spanking, yelling, etc., and he said "My adopted parents are pedophiles." I immediately covered my face with my hands in horror and my heart rate went up, I felt a profound pain in my heart, and took a deep breath, and continued to chat for a few minutes, of course extending a deep sympathy and trying to find ways he can get help. I learned that he has cut contact with them, but hasn't told the extended family, he said maybe he would "when they were dead". I told him that I think he should seriously consider trying to tell the rest of the family. I think he has tried to tell the sister, not sure if she is also adopted, but said she considers him a demon for not speaking with the parents. Obviously he is still afraid of the violent consequences of telling the truth about horrible things. He was trying to project on to the problems of the world, but a few minutes of thoughtful questioning got right to the truth. I really have to thank Stef and this community for helping me to see these kinds of things, that when people talk about politics, 99% of the time they are really not talking about politics. I remember on a Sunday show, he once said something like "The truth about people is only ever a 15 minute conversation away". Part of the reason I share this, and that it is bewildering to me, is that this is not the first time this has happened - that someone I don't know so well feels safe enough to tell me about horrible things that have happened to them as children. Even before I got into FDR this happened a few times, though I feel somewhat ashamed that I was not capable of handling it very well. I am not sure what it is about my personality, that makes people feel comfortable with telling me stuff like this. But I don't consider it a burden, I am very happy to give people an opportunity to share their pain, I can't imagine the weight of carrying such a secret amongs a society primarily concerned with sports and celebrities and political theater and the newest gadgets. I will say, that I used to be somewhat hardened and cynical as a teenager, I suppose as a defense mechanism, and to some extent as an imitation of my brother who is still like this in some ways. But in my early twenties I developed a softer side, a lot to do with experiencing intimacy with girls, and now I have a strong sense of empathy which I consider a strength, whereas when I was younger I think I became cynical because I thought of emotionalism as a weakness. I get a feeling in my heart and in my gut, that seems to mirror the joy or sadness or anger in others, I can get very moved my art and music and movies, and before I became more aware, by propaganda as well (I am ashamed to admit that in 2008 I was almost moved to tears by Obama's "Yes we can" speech). So despite the fact that I seem pretty calm and intelligent, and am not outwardly emotional, I think people can sense this about me, and share these things which they are desperate to talk to someone about. I wonder if I should become a therapist. Anyway if you've made it this far, I appreciate the time and patience listening to my experiences with this. Has anyone else experienced this kind of emotional transformation, or this kind of forthcoming from traumatized people? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Hrmm I have a few scattered thoughts, I hope can be of some use.How do these topics usually come up? Do you feel that you make an effort to always steer every conversation to philosophy? What kind of philosophy do you talk about? Is it always about politics, or do you talk about your relationship as well? I think it is a male feature to delve into abstracts and principles, while women tend to focus on practical aspects of relationships. This is something we can learn from them. I can only speculate, but I get the impression that you are doing a lot of lecturing, or if you do ask her questions, she avoids or ignores or tries to change the subject.Have you ever attempted to question her father when he says these things, or seen her try to do this? My guess is that at some point she has tried, and received a violent verbal backlash - my impression is that the father says these things out of emotional impulses, and wouldn't like to be questioned. This would explain her fear of questioning or delving deeper into your ideas. You can talk about political philosophy all day and she will not come around to the logic of your thinking, because its not about logic. It's about her experience with men and their opinions. Rather you ought to ask about her relationship with her father, and with you. Perhaps you are afraid to really do this because you are afraid of losing her? Why is this? What do you really value about her as a girlfriend? Tell her. Be honest about your frustration, and your willingness to change your behavior, and to be questioned or obejcted to without emotional reaction or judgment. This is the security which she lacks with her father, show her how it can be different. And you have to be willing to give her the same consideration you want her to give you. Otherwise it would seem to her that you are bullying her in the same way her father does. Again, I am totally speculating given the limited information you gave. Please tell me your thoughts on this.One more thought - Is there something meaningful your girlfriend does care about, anthropology, art, whatever? You mentioned that at one point you had a lot in common. It would help if you showed that you are willing to listen and engage in conversation on her terms, otherwise you can't expect the same of her for you. Again, you have to give her consideration. Healthy relationships are about balance and equal standards. A lot of women feel that men talk too much and don't listen or care about what women think. Given your description of her father that is most likely the case for her as well. I hope that stirs some thought. Good luck,

"Property is theft" fails a basic logic test, as any definition of theft depends on a definition of just property.I appreciate your point, but the problem as I see it, is that the way this inequality is addressed, is by giving a small group of people the power to redistribute resources as they see fit, which is clearly a far greater inequality than having more stuff than others. Wherever there is a State, and a monopoly over moving around wealth, there exists greater wealth inequality. Do you see a way of addressing wealth inequality for the sake of children that is not immoral or dysfunctional?

http://historyandancestry.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/rebellion-armed-uprisings-in-america-following-the-revolution/comment-page-1/#comment-104Kind of disturbing/amusing article, about the force used by the early American government to impose taxes on people who resisted, and how this shows we should never question or resist government because of what the "founding fathers" said. Pretty transparent, but people can't see the obvious. He invokes this great language about how the government was just because it was established "by the people" (not counting the brown, black, red, or female people) when the history shows that the government was "legitimate" because George Washington commanded the army.

hrmm well that is all interesting, but I'm a bit lost. how did we go from talking about responsibility and ownership to tactics for avoiding the government?

I'm always very skeptical of the genocidal alien invader myth. It seems to me, given the premise that force and the need to dominate, and feed off of others is self-destructive, it is not possible for a psychopathic species to become interstellar. We see how dysfunctional and self-defeating maintaining an Empire even on a small planet is; its hard to imagine that an interplanetary or especially interstellar civilization would be based off the principle of domination and destruction. The successful elements in Nature are those that give life to everything around them, the tree, the mycelium, even the Sun. Whereas parasitic species always kill their host and don't evolve past annoying little bugs. A people that can liberate themselves from terrestrial existence would first need to conquer themselves and their delusions. If you could harness the power of Light and Space and Time, what could you possibly want from people on Earth?

yes the patronizing tone aside, I appreciate it, I guess...obviously this Pope and the Catholic Church are trying to give themselves a makeover to react to the growing contempt/apathy towards them and religion in general. however, my response to this statement would be "okay great! what does it mean to behave morally and live according to one's conscience?' "

Good question, I guess I would go talk to someone in charge, try to understand why it is I have to take this class. The thing is, in life, I often have trouble with seeking out answers like this, I have an incredibly difficult time with bureaucracy, paperwork, applications, etc. Probably to do with all the time I feel I wasted with homework and jumping through hoops to meet external standards that I fundamentally don't care about. Yes I'm not sure if this is right or not, but it is certainly interesting. I'll have to give it some thought. Thank you.

It may help to give some clarification on the philosophical history of the word "property". Originally property means a "trait" or "aspect" of something. It was first used with regard to Human Rights by John Locke, who meant it in the same basic way. So a bunch of wood lying in the forest is just an aspect of Nature. But when a person invests time and energy into organizing that wood into a house, it becomes a "property of that person". Property has since come to be used very loosely, and now we think of property as meaning "a thing that is owned". Not sure if this is splitting hairs or not. The important thing to realize, with regards to property, is that, no matter how you think about it, human beings have to make decisions about interacting with matter in order to survive. This can be organized in many ways, but there is no way around it. So when people say that "Natives don't understand the idea of property", I would argue this is not true. The people who believe they can con them or cheat them out of their land, or violently kick them off their land, or mine natural resources at the expense of those peoples' lifestyles are the ones who don't understand the idea of property. Responsibility is an interesting wrinkle to bring to the situation. One way of putting it, is that "when land becomes your property, you become a property of the land". This is interesting, but it is still a question of how would this idea be negotiated or enforced in a society, and how would it look different than a private property system as we currently think of it? The issue is actually not so much about property as it is about conflict between people. What are the standards by which a person can have a legitimate claim about another person's interaction with matter? If a person is poisoning the river you drink from, perhaps you have a legitimate claim. If they are killing animals for whom you claim responsibility, perhaps you have a claim. If they are taking material from your house to build their house, you certainly have a claim. If they are using drugs you don't like, perhaps you DON'T have a claim. This is the fundamental concept behind most political issues. I don't know what is the answer to how all conflicts should/can be resolved, or what principles designate what property belongs to whom, and what, if any property belongs to no one. I do know that the way we do it know is insane and problematic. Hope that helps to put this stuff in a different light.

Yes I like the general approach. It's true that people often take offense with the moral argument, but otherwise it is hard for them to understand why you go straight from "there are problems with government currently" to "there shouldn't be a government". For most people it sounds radical, "the best government is a balance".One general criticism I have is that your writing tends to read very "fast", that is, you burn through a lot of ideas in a sentence, that might be difficult for someone who is new to this stuff. It might be easier to break it up into shorter sentences, and spend more time qualifying your statements, so that the argument reads more slowly. ex: "For example, perhaps we will say "well it is fair to force people to pay for things even if they don't want to, because they accept services from Government in return," but if we are not willing to have the honesty to say that that is what we mean rather than apply euphemisms, then we perhaps have something to hide." This is quite a mouthful to chew on for someone who has never thought about it. You might try rephrasing it like, "For example, someone might say 'taxation is fair because people accept services from government in return'. They might feel more uncomfortable calling taxation what it is, i.e. ' it is fair to force people to pay for things even if they don't want to, because they accept services from Government in return'. If we are not willing to have the honesty to say that this is what we mean rather than apply euphemisms, then we perhaps have something to hide." Just a suggestion I hear this argument quite often, sort of trying to flip the against me argument on its head, accusing the person who doesn't pay taxes of stealing government services. An easy way to blow this up, is ask, "what would it look like, without the badge?". If I wash your car without your consent, then tell you that you owe me a certain sum that is not negotiable, and if you refuse I will use force, you would understand that you are being scammed or extorted. In the last paragraph you gave me, I think you need some examples to explain yourself (you probably realize this)" we must first be aware of the ways that government does not make us secure" for example? - of course you could write 100 pages on this I'm sure "In order to have security we only have to set up the correct incentives for security to happen. The rest will take care of itself." how does that look?great stuff, please post when you have more written. do you have an outline of the basic points you would want to approach? One more I forgot to mention that people will often ask about is environmental protection. good luck!

Yes I think anti-vaccine vs. "nothing wrong with any vaccines" is a bit of a conflagration of the issue. I have a bit of a problem with either side, though I am open to being convinced otherwise.I heard a story about measles outbreaks among children in anti-vaccine communities. Would like some followup on this, but does suggest that .There is an issue, however, of course with the State coercing children to be vaccinated, and with the sheer amount of vaccines that are now subjected two babies, with developing immune systems. Many of these vaccines are for conditions which aren't so serious, and often they contain a toxic mercury solution as a preservative which can have horrible effects on the brain. It does seem to me that the companies which get the government patent and approval to inject this stuff in children are just making money off people's ignorance, and possibly experimenting on the DNA of the population as a whole.

Yea depends if you want to take a moral approach or a technical approach. A moral approach is likely to anger him, whereas if you ask a technical question he is likely to just talk over your head, rely on his "expertise" to dismiss you. I have a question that I like to "trap" Keynesians with, goes something like this. "If expansion in the money supply is necessary to respond to increases in productivity, why don't you just put money into everyone's bank account?" You may need to ask an initial question to get him to give you the premise, that central banks create money to respond to increases in wealth. The point of the question, is that it shows that, if everyone got the money at the same time, prices would immediately go up and it wouldn't really make any difference. So this is kind of a technical question that insinuates a moral issue - it points out the immorality and injustice of a system where only a few people have access to newly created money, not because they are producers, but because they are politically connected.

Yes it is important to realize with psychedelics, that they are in many ways the opposite of addictive drugs. One experience can bring up so many new or repressed thoughts and usually results in a kind of feeling of refreshment, or release of anxiety and nervous energy, that there is, for most people, not an urge to use them again in the near future, the way there is for cocaine or nicotine or perscription painkillers. Furthermore, many psychedelics have been used therapeutically and are proven to be incredibly effective at curing addiction, from alcohol to heroine. The substances are not therapeutic in themselves, they drop the barriers that one has to self-knowledge and clarity of thought. The work still must be done by the individual, and the set and setting must be appropriate.

hrmmm that is a difficult situation, as children will naturally tend not towards racism or hate. however a racist parent may think they are doing a good thing by teaching that child to fear certain kinds of people that they perceive to be dangerous. if you lived in the jungle in India, it would make sense to teach your kids to be wary of cobras, so from his perspective he would be doing a good thing. but because it is an inherently irrational belief, he may need to lie, or frighten the child to pass on the belief, as his own racism was brought about by trauma. I was jumped by a group of black kids, a few years ago. If I hadn't pulled a knife on them and scared them off, I would have been really hurt, I am sure - I needed stitches and still have a scar on my eyebrow from where one of them hit me. This didn't turn me into a racist, because I had already had a lot of friendships and positve experiences with people of other colors, but I can say that for at least a month after that experience, when I saw a group of young black kids hanging out, I would tense up. So I can understand if he was seriously hurt by these kids, and was younger than it happened (I was 24 at the time), it must be really be fixed in his unconcious, and brain and body. So I think he deserves empathy for his pain though obviously not sympathy for his views.

I like the idea, that you want to spend time talking about practical alternatives. However I should think the introduction needs to be a bit more thorough (maybe you realize this) and at least briefly address the philosophical/moral argument, the argument from principles, before talking about effects. When I talk about effects, I find that most people agree with the problems of war, drug laws, police corruption, and so on, although things like inflation and national debt is more obscure to most people; but they believe these things would not be a problem if more people agreed with them and were politically active. In other words, the problems that we see as a logical consequence of Statism, most people see as only the result of "bad government". When you say " states run based of force or the threat of force", most people will object to this, or dismiss it as radical, unless you really take the time to show them. Until you do this, all your practical alternatives will sound insane to them, and feels as if you are imposing your "crazy" ideas about running society on them, the way we feel about Statism in general. So it is important to point out the definition of a government, and the inherent contradiction in calling something "good" or necessary for peace, law, and order, which is inherently the opposite of those things. That anyone who engaged in this behavior without the veil of magic rituals, elections, flags, constitutions, legislation, badges, etc. would be considered a criminal and could not be shielded from the social consequences of their crimes by something called the "State".Maybe point out the inconsistency of a State enforcing laws against assault, murder, kidnapping, theft, extortion, fraud, and counterfeiting, while reserving these actions for themselves under euphemisms. Also that we expect three-year-olds to understand and adhere to "don't hit, don't steal" but make exceptions for our so-called leaders. So what kind of "practical alternatives to domination systems" did you plan on writing about? The bullet points I would want to hit are - Security Dispute Resolution Currency Welfare and Healthcare Education and extending Voluntarism to children ROADS!!!! - make sure to include the possiblity that in a Free Society, Flying Saucers are likely to be invented within a decade or so, making the question of roads irrelevant except for nostalgic bicyclists. "Where we're going, we don't need roads".

is it possible for your brother to get therapy?

that's an interesting topic. I've heard women tell me that a lot of men do this kind of thing, lightly hitting, as a way of flirting, and they don't like it. Not that they feel threatened, but they think it is awkward and seems like the only way a man knows to flirt. I can certainly relate to feeling apprehension about initiating touching. a friend actually took me aside recently, and pointed out to me that I am oblivious when women are very attracted to me. it seems like I often get to the point where they like me, as I am generally friendly, thoughtful, empathetic, inquistive, etc. but at a certain point I don't know how, or am afraid of the risk involved with taking it to the next level. what I am coming to understand, is that if you are not agressive or threatening, and initiate contact, a confident woman will either reciprocate, or have a way of signaling they are not interested in touching, without embarassing you. I hope that makes some sense.

Ordinary "citizens" cannot levy a tax on one another. If we did it would be perceived as extortion. The mafia protection racket is comparable. The mafia claims to be offering a service, and may even perform that service to some extent - they might protect your business from other mafias - but it is not negotiable, and there is the threat of force. So it would be perceived by most as immoral. Supposedly, governments can tax because they have a social contract/consent of the governed. But as Larken Rose puts it, you cannot delegate a right you don't have. He sums up the absurdity of it very succinctly and humorously in this great little video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE Also if you want to go into more detail you could mention how every democracy in the world has a serious national debt problem, and so the taxes are going to pay for money already spent, on policies which young voters were not able to affect.

Is there someone who can help with recommending or setting up an interview?

my part is NOT that small! sorry I couldn't resist