nixy

At the moment, government debt money creation is underwritten by tax payers, future & present. What if that compulsion / coercion were to end?

Would it be any different under NAP. I can only think there would be less money available without government people threatening violence against tax paying people? sorry about spelling

Thanks for your reply ...... have not logged in the past few days as I thought I was banned. Anyway, the point I was /am trying to explore, was if all who threatened violence / corcion were encarcerated, rather than whether or not tyranny might be some kind of desirable. So the first person / group attempting to extort a rent on stuff they did not own was / were banged up until they learned to produce goods & services in an honest & free market. Someone above said food production would be impossible......? which makes no sense at all..... as the very few preventing food production would be in the slammer. All hypthetical stuff, I know..... just some fun whatifery really.

I forgot to say / ask of the honesty of fiat money creation. If money is (or should be) an accurate record of account of trade... a contract(?) Richard, I was wondering, would (dis)honest money be high or low conscientiouesness, as opposed to fiat thin air credit 'money'? I was thinking perhaps Bitcoin et al, where they can not (?) create other records of account from thin air...... given that it is said no more than 21million Bitcoin will be 'produced'. Edit:- This to be added to the thought experiment ie This type of A system of accurate money was implemental years ago.

revision 1. test

....people, miraculously, all (99.99%?) decided to defend themselves against tyranny. They educated their young, they were allowed to use as much force as was needed ONLY to defend themselves and others. The young were also told, although property they acquired by work, talent & good fortune belonged to them ....... the land could (and should) not be owned. People and land could not be owned by other people.... But people were completely free to trade, but must not cause harm nor loss to others. What would life be like today.....if the above had been implemented years ago?? Just a thought experiment ..... reserve the right(?) to reword it according to any suggestions?

Hi As per title really. Just been reading how 'countries' (Germany?) can lend to other 'countries' (Greek people?), £billions that were created at the stroke of a keyboard. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/06/germany-1953-greece-2015-economic-marshall-plan-debt-relief So the term lending can have two totally separate meanings. 1. Lending something earned &/or tangible.... or a token of something earned &/or tangible. as opposed to 2. Lending something at the stroke of a keyboard...... ie no representation of anything earned &/or tangible. Does SM have a view on this fundamental? Cheers

You are right ..... Sorry, I worded it clumsily. I tried to clarify with the edit ...... the state having no legitimacy..... it is just some people reliant solely upon violence. ...and this is the problem..... even I can not get the terms correct..... have to chose words more carefully.

But surely it is only the state (or more precisely, state officials) that give legitimacy to 'landlords' 'ownership' of 'their' land ? edit:- Of course, when I say 'state officials' ...... I meant to say 'some people'.

Ah yes, but this is not, in the first instance, anything about NAP. It is the confusion that land is property. ??

Well, the farmer never owned the land in the first instance..... just as the murderer wouldn't own it.

I posted this on TSR and have received a life ban.....sigh...... still, who needs 'freedom' anyway.... https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk

Don't know what happened to my last reply ....... another one lost. You made mention of a person using your car without permission was the same as someone using your music without permission. It has been deleted. I replied, if I use your car, without agreement, you have incurred a demonstrable loss. But, if I whistle, sing or play your music you have suffered no loss.

No. When I drive your car you are incurring a cost, which, subject to agreement, I owe you..... if I do not pay, you have suffered a loss. What loss have you suffered if I have whistled / sung / played 'your' song. Time to move on? ..... why? sorry

But although you & I freely entered into an agreement not to use you idea / product ...... why should anyone else have to be held to that agreement?