Money(Fundamentally)

[Vengey_Abel]

If any one thing affects us ALL daily, globally, and perpetually...it is Money.

 

What is the stuff?
 

What has it done to us?
 

What should it do for us?
 

...and what is THE most important question that we should ask?

 

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Vengey_Abel
Presentation/Layout, Refined questions

[RichardY]

Ecclesiastes 10:19 A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.

I remember asking a similar question once to my father about a £10 note for my Birthday when I was 11. The answer was something like. Father: "Well if you don't want it, I'll have it." Me: "No, just wondering what £10 is actually worth." Father: "Well I don't know, maybe some economist could tell you".

Contrasted to Bitcoin or fiat Currency, I believe the purpose is not to provide answers and is more speculative in nature.

 

Piano Teacher: If I pretended I could teach you a Beethoven's fifth, by Tuesday week I'd be telling a lie and I can't afford to do that. Not for financial reasons Mr. stickler but because of self-respect and that my boy is more valuable to me than 50 guineas a half-hour. I feel you  should go now we got nothing more to discuss.

Mr Stickler: First class, never has anyone spoken like that to me for years, I like your style, I like the cut of your jib, integrity that's a valuable thing and I'm willing to pay for it. I'll Pay you 100 Guineas per half hour!  Piano Teacher: That's more like it boyo! Now you'll find a black notes play, a bit louder than the white ones.

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Money is a medium for value and it is a huge labor saving device compared to lugging around crap tons of stuff around for say a computer, and also is more efficient than bartering because the payer doesn't need to predict what the seller wants, the payer can simply give the seller cash with which to buy what the seller wants.

It essentially makes cities possible and makes it goods far more accessible than otherwise. 

I mean hypothetically speaking if I wanted a computer and the computer guy wanted a ton of apples but all I had was words on paper then I'd have to find someone willing to exchange a ton of apples for words on paper (and chances are he'd be willing to give like 1/10th of a ton but not all of a ton nor 10 books of the same thing), and then I'd have to lug all those apples to the computer store only to discover the computer guy now wants oranges. And the oranges guy wants f__king grapes. And the grapes guy wants tomatoes. And the tomato guy wants...

...You see how this BS goes? Money makes it so much easier. 

[Tyler H]

Because I couldn’t possibly say it any better. 

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/franciscos-money-speech/

[Vengey_Abel]

Thanks...and a good start. Money mechanizes the best and worst in man, so is it perhaps less the "love of money" than the monopolization of it that bends us the wrong way through history?

Frisco had it alright, but,  his 'high perspective' http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/franciscos-money-speech/ rather skirts around the fundamentals of what money means to those who don't HAVE it.

...Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. 

Can this axiom hold true, without the destruction of "Evil Money"? 
(ie:// can a monopolized "vehicle" be considered good enough to trade tor value anymore?)
Does not the empowerment of 'people' through monetary wealth often only further poison the well?
 Frisco didn't allow much room for the possibility that we might avoid utter implosion(somehow).
What is going to be most important during that inevitable collapse? (Not the value of a dollar, but the perceived value.)

(Sticking to the most important, and thanks for the article, Tyler.)

 

Edited December 2, 2017 by Vengey_Abel
Proof-read, add-on...further clarity.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Money is a creation by the state that gives value to an otherwise worthless object via taxation, in order for the state the violently move goods and services from the private to the public sector.

It goes like this:

1. Government demands taxes in "money". Gold stamped with a certain face, silver stamped with a certain face, paper notes, key strokes, whatever.

2. Everyone becomes unemployed. "Employment" meaning engaging in work paid in tokens that can pay taxes.

3. The government can then spend money into existence to "purchase" goods and services.

4. The money in valuable because people will need it to pay their taxes later.

5. Government creates a medium of exchange within a certain geographical area by this mechanism.

Before everyone here comes screaming at me: I'm not saying the private sector can't make money. It's just never happened--the government won't allow it.

[Vengey_Abel]

All really interesting, and good Fundamentals. Thanks.

Can the loss of creative and other energies(moral or otherwise) ever be quantified -being that the more evil the monopoly, the more heinous the decision to lend one's desire toward money?
They can give us more of it, but a society still becomes characterized by the morality of the sacrifices made for it.

Quote

 

 

[Vengey_Abel]

On 11/25/2017 at 5:16 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

"Money is a medium for value...

...It essentially makes cities possible and makes it goods far more accessible than otherwise. 

...You see how this BS goes? Money makes it so much easier. "

So, money is a "tool", as long as it's an accepted also a store of value...depending on ones' faith in it. But when that illusion fails, money becomes a tool of destruction, and the Value Producer's undoing.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

21 minutes ago, Vengey_Abel said:

So, money is a "tool", as long as it's an accepted also a store of value...depending on ones' faith in it. But when that illusion fails, money becomes a tool of destruction, and the Value Producer's undoing.

How is value--which is entirely subjective--an illusion? How is money being valuable an illusion? How is money a tool of destruction? How does this destroy the makers of monies? 

[Tyler H]

On 12/1/2017 at 8:02 PM, Vengey_Abel said:

Money mechanizes the best and worst in man, so is it perhaps less the "love of money" than the monopolization of it that bends us the wrong way through history?

Yes I think that’s definitely part of it. I don’t think monopolization is necessarily bad, as long as it’s voluntary- but the coercive monopolization certainly is. I also think the branch of coercive monopolization has a root we should be striking instead.

When a more efficient medium of exchange is developed, a shortcut to resources emerges. Whereas before you needed to produce something yourself to obtain products from others (or steal it which has its own risks), now if you can just get ahold of the medium of exchange (much easier to steal and pass off as your own due to the qualities that make it a good currency - viz. fungibility and portability) then you don’t need to produce anything. If you can control that medium of exchange, now you’re really in a fine position.

It is natural through biological evolution for people to want to acquire the most resources through the least effort. The willingness to eschew morality, to attain resources through another’s labor and not your own, is what distorts our progress as a society. It is not the love of money, but the desire for the unearned (which leads to the violent monopolization of a medium of exchange) that is bending us the wrong way through history so to speak.

[Vengey_Abel]

On 11/25/2017 at 5:16 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

"Money is a medium for value..."
No longer any 'media' at all however, if(/when) TPTB decide to exercise power over the term 'convenience'.

"... is a huge labor saving device..."
But it's a labor-stealing device, as we're trillions in the red.

In terms of sheer "utility", well look where we are, I guess...

 

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

11 minutes ago, Vengey_Abel said:

 

That's not money's fault that's the fault of the governments which monopolize money and choose to print it to inflation. 

So you don't deny it's convenience relative to bartering and how cost-effective it is, right?

[Vengey_Abel]

I do not deny its convenience. To the contrary really...I express its importance as a conductor of energy. 

But in fact, government monopoly is no better or worse than corporate monopoly as they run the same game every time.

Henry Ford said there were "two kinds of capital" ...Human Capital, which must be competed for, and financial capital which -to one degree or another- monopolizes and inevitably debases that same "money".

For instance, Bitcoin...the 'splits' represent peoples' need for not just a store of value, but also something instantly fungible which hopefully remains long enough for wheelbarrow loads of it to buy bread.

Once said "conductor" is no longer the staple energy source for beurocracy, we have trouble, for which everyone pays.

 

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by Vengey_Abel
Additions

[Vengey_Abel]

I do not deny its convenience. To the contrary really...I express its importance as a conductor of energy. 

But in fact, government monopoly is no better or worse than corporate monopoly as they run the same game every time.

Henry Ford said there were "two kinds of capital" ...Human Capital, which must be competed for, and financial capital which -to one degree or another- monopolizes and inevitably debases that same "money".

For instance, Bitcoin...the 'splits' represent peoples' need for not just a store of value, but also something instantly fungible which hopefully remains long enough for wheelbarrow loads of it to buy bread.

Once said "conductor" is no longer the staple energy source for beurocracy, we have trouble, for which everyone pays.

[Vengey_Abel]

On 12/17/2017 at 11:37 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

That's not money's fault that's the fault of the governments which monopolize money and choose to print it to inflation. 

So you don't deny it's convenience relative to bartering and how cost-effective it is, right?

My post replies show as Hidden. Just testing...
 

I do not deny its convenience. To the contrary really...I express its importance as a conductor of energy. 

But in fact, government monopoly is no better or worse than corporate monopoly as they run the same game every time.

Henry Ford said there were "two kinds of capital" ...Human Capital, which must be competed for, and financial capital which -to one degree or another- monopolizes and inevitably debases that same "money".

For instance, Bitcoin...the 'splits' represent peoples' need for not just a store of value, but also something instantly fungible which hopefully remains long enough for wheelbarrow loads of it to buy bread.

Once said "conductor" is no longer the staple energy source for beurocracy, we have trouble, for which everyone pays.

[SnapSlav]

On 12/1/2017 at 5:02 PM, Vengey_Abel said:

so is it perhaps less the "love of money" than the monopolization of it that bends us the wrong way through history?

It's important that we start at the right point, rather than begin on an assumption, only to find out halfway through the process that the assumption was false and only THEN do we realize that all our work has been formed off of a false pretense.

Case in point: The idiom "the love of money is the root of all evil" is not some iron-clad absolute. As such, I'd say this is a VERY flimsy place to begin any philosophical conversation. The phrase has been bastardized and bastardized to the point that many people believe the saying is "money is the root of all evil", which when taught to children gets them to thinking that there's tiny aspects of malevolence inhabiting their pockets. It's absurd. So is "the love of money" being the actual source of "evil" more accurate? Highly doubtful, as this was more an idea put forth by societies that valued sacrifice and demonized materialism.

If we were to attempt to pinpoint "the root of all evil", that could be a heft conversation with no end in sight. But I do know I plant my flag in the "ignorance is the root of all evil" camp. Although I do take a somewhat etymological approach to the definition of "ignorance" than most people seem to, these days. I don't equate the starting point we all share of "knowing nothing" with "ignorance", but rather what we might call "taking the blue pill" is what "ignorance" is better defined as. You are "ignoring" something, performing an act of discarding information that is presented to you, you are not simply unaware of the information. Thus I find that people actively disregarding knowledge are doing a "bad" thing, and after some necessary distillations and further explanations, I arrive at the claim that "ignorance is the root of all evil".

But that's all besides the point. So about money...

Although I'm aware of the taxation theory of money that Dylan Lawrence Moore seems to constantly allude to whenever he discusses finances, and I think it appears to be the correct theory on the origin of money, I'm not as cynical about the implications held within the assumption that money is originally derived from its utilities by states to impose taxes upon its citizens. As Siegfried von Walheim explained in his first post referring to the barter theory of money, it IS a more convenient unit of exchange than barter, and thus if it is indeed a creation of the state, it was an invention that people found much greater personal and private use than they found negatives associated with it. Better still, it's an invention that can be utilized in the ABSENCE of the state. Whereas the concept of taxes cannot be disassociated from the embodiment of the state, money can be. If a hypothetical "free society" were to establish itself, in the hyper-libertarian sense, and all of the land and borders and defenses were locally and privately owned, the people would be communicating their exchanges of personal property using a form of currency, whether money or fiat (most likely private bank money). Even if those units of money were immaterial, the confidence element (all economics are realistically the result of confidence, and everything else just provides the reason to have or lack confidence) would still be material. Liens would be contractually enforceable monetary assets used to secure property upon the collateral of other property. Private notes would be backed by some form of valuable. Theoretically, if a stateless society could exist, so could money. Money may have originated from states, but it is the pandora's box that states opened and can never close again. We now have the tool to use at our disposal, and they can never reclaim that from us.

So in short:

• What is the stuff?

It's a unit of value for the purposes of exchange.

• What in hell has it done to us?

It's allowed for civilized societies to exist, with all the wonders and pitfalls that come with them.

• What should it do?

It serves its intended function.

Really the concerning questions are how big can you blow your bubble before it bursts. Currency was not the cause of the housing crisis of the last decade, but the transition from money to fiat certainly exacerbated the situation. Fiat is wildly less reliable than money, but it is also more useful in certain cases. Again, it allows for wonders and nightmares, depending on how it is used. The stick becoming the club becoming the sword becoming the cannon becoming the gun becoming the nuke is not in and of itself the terror... it's what is done with it. If you spend your hard-earned cash on a pen (or the modern equivalent being a device that allows you to connect to the internet) then you can use it to communicate with the outside world. You can also use it to spread misinformation and lies meant to damage other parties for nefarious purposes. Just because we see some negative aspects to the yang does not mean the yin isn't there.

[ofd]

There are two kinds of investments you can make with money: a) in tangible products or b) in speculation. Every bubble that burst was because some bubble burst, be it in the stock market, housing, tulips or god knows what else. Speculation starts with hedge finance, becomes speculative and turns into a Ponzi. By then, the system has become so unstable that essentially any small negative change may let it implode.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 1/1/2018 at 8:22 PM, Vengey_Abel said:

My post replies show as Hidden. Just testing...
 

I do not deny its convenience. To the contrary really...I express its importance as a conductor of energy. 

But in fact, government monopoly is no better or worse than corporate monopoly as they run the same game every time.

Henry Ford said there were "two kinds of capital" ...Human Capital, which must be competed for, and financial capital which -to one degree or another- monopolizes and inevitably debases that same "money".

For instance, Bitcoin...the 'splits' represent peoples' need for not just a store of value, but also something instantly fungible which hopefully remains long enough for wheelbarrow loads of it to buy bread.

Once said "conductor" is no longer the staple energy source for beurocracy, we have trouble, for which everyone pays.

Okay, what's the alternative to having a currency? I don't disagree government monopolies of currencies has a nasty tendency to backfire in the long run (whether it be through inflation-funded wars, economic bubbles and bursts, etc.) however until I hear a reasoned argument for an alternative to a currency I don't see the point of complaining about currencies. 

Of course I am pretty sure most folks here agree government monopolies of a currency is bad and has terrible consequences. I think this issue is a dead horse. What's interesting is that you imply by stating there are problems with currencies that we ought to have another means of exchange. What's this other means? 

[Fashus Maximus]

On 12/1/2017 at 8:17 PM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

I'm not saying the private sector can't make money. It's just never happened--the government won't allow it.

- This private currency article is literally first on Google.

- We've had a world economy way before 1914, ffs.

 

I don't understand how anyone still follows the idea that "if muh-guvment don't do it then who will". We've had literally everything the government now "provides", before it started providing it. What the government is needed for right now is to physically remove the violent savages we've imported, and to protect us from the happy merchants who've engaged in the white genocide Kalergi plan. Those are the sort of things that we can't do ourselves.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

5 minutes ago, Fashus Maximus said:

- This private currency article is literally first on Google.

- We've had a world economy way before 1914, ffs.

 

I don't understand how anyone still follows the idea that "if muh-guvment don't do it then who will". We've had literally everything the government now "provides", before it started providing it. What the government is needed for right now is to physically remove the violent savages we've imported, and to protect us from the happy merchants who've engaged in the white genocide Kalergi plan. Those are the sort of things that we can't do ourselves.

Actually we could do those things. The problem is with a government we'd be arrested/shot/persecuted for it. 

Mafias, gangs, militias, etc. have existed since forever. A government only gets in the way of them taking action, for better or worse. 

That being said sometimes that's a good thing since vigilantism isn't always right and can be often wrong. However I think Stefpai's argued well enough that we don't need a government to have a legal system, and it's a legal system that I'm really referring to that can stop the mob from making the wrong decisions. 

Edited January 14, 2018 by Siegfried von Walheim

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

1 hour ago, Fashus Maximus said:

- This private currency article is literally first on Google.

- We've had a world economy way before 1914, ffs.

Literally the second sentence of the Wikipedia article reads:

"In a free banking system, market forces control the supply of total quantity of banknotes and deposits that can be supported by any given stock of cash reserves, where such reserves consist either of a scarce commodity (such as gold) or of an artificially limited stock of "fiat" money issued by a central bank."

Thus the "free banking" era was the same as it is today. Bank products called "loans" were and are essentially IOUs that the bank agrees to exchange for real money (a.k.a. government-issued money) on demand. There difference is that in the free banking era, there was no regulation dictating to banks how much had to be held in reserve, and no federal insurance for any deposits. If the bank couldn't produce legal tender (federal notes or gold) when it was demanded, then it went belly up.

When did I mention that there wasn't a world economy before 1914?

5 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

I don't understand how anyone still follows the idea that "if muh-guvment don't do it then who will". 

Me neither. Who suggested this?

5 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

We've had literally everything the government now "provides", before it started providing it. 

Nuclear bombs, satellites, and money are a few exceptions to this.

[SnapSlav]

On 1/13/2018 at 6:06 PM, Fashus Maximus said:

What the government is needed for right now is to physically remove the violent savages we've imported, and to protect us from the happy merchants who've engaged in the white genocide Kalergi plan. Those are the sort of things that we can't do ourselves.

Or..... they can get out of the way of their own citizens, and you'll find them QUITE capable of kicking out unwanted savages and implementing forms of protection from injurious institutions. I dunno, I'm pretty sure the American settlers kicked out some unwanted types without having fully formed a fully-fledged state to do it form them. But then again, that's just stuff taught in history books; could always be revisionism.

It's a bit ironic that you followed a statement condemning over-reliance on government with this comment suggesting that we need to rely on government to do these particular things, as though free citizens couldn't do so on their own. But ironic is all it is; I don't think it's nefarious, or stupid, or offensive, or what-have-you of you to say it.

[Vengey_Abel]

On 1/13/2018 at 7:01 PM, ofd said:

There are two kinds of investments you can make with money: a) in tangible products or b) in speculation. Every bubble that burst was because some bubble burst, be it in the stock market, housing, tulips or god knows what else. Speculation starts with hedge finance, becomes speculative and turns into a Ponzi. By then, the system has become so unstable that essentially any small negative change may let it implode.

Three kinds of investment then, actually...

[Vengey_Abel]

On 1/13/2018 at 7:01 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Okay, what's the alternative to having a currency? I don't disagree government monopolies of currencies has a nasty tendency to backfire in the long run (whether it be through inflation-funded wars, economic bubbles and bursts, etc.) however until I hear a reasoned argument for an alternative to a currency I don't see the point of complaining about currencies. 

Of course I am pretty sure most folks here agree government monopolies of a currency is bad and has terrible consequences. I think this issue is a dead horse. What's interesting is that you imply by stating there are problems with currencies that we ought to have another means of exchange. What's this other means? 

Firstly, if you require a reasoned argument for creation of another 'official' currency, I can't do that.

There are, of course many alternatives to having "a" currency... seems plain enough... Yet the result of not having ANY of it happens to be the pawning of everything we're worth just to feed ourselves because any currency at hand is sufficient to "charge" the immediate human need, when the chips are down...no matter what you're worth. Therefore, that's what need be the only required value in it. (ie:// 'Money' can, and always will take care of itself...we just need the bread.)

...so, Yes. We need another means of exchange.
All through time, somewhere in the overall supply we are always bled perfectly dry by the unending lack of it.

So currency has a value unto itself, in that it captures our essence. It is devoid of value without our need, and our faith, so hardly any wonder its natural degradation to our willingness to decide on the side of love(being so deeply embedded in the money illusion) ...and hence that historically high value criminal relationship between banks, churches and gov's known as seigniorage.

You pose the question plainly enough, "What's this other means?"... Well, as the answer evolves, please don't let this dead horse roll over on you... 
In fact, I'd be interested to hear what you think -even hypothetically- COULD be more current, or more important a question to answer?  

 

[Vengey_Abel]

On 1/13/2018 at 4:43 PM, SnapSlav said:

...
Really the concerning questions are how big can you blow your bubble before it bursts. Currency was not the cause of the housing crisis of the last decade, but the transition from money to fiat certainly exacerbated the situation. Fiat is wildly less reliable than money, but it is also more useful in certain cases. Again, it allows for wonders and nightmares, depending on how it is used. The stick becoming the club becoming the sword becoming the cannon becoming the gun becoming the nuke is not in and of itself the terror... it's what is done with it. If you spend your hard-earned cash on a pen (or the modern equivalent being a device that allows you to connect to the internet) then you can use it to communicate with the outside world. You can also use it to spread misinformation and lies meant to damage other parties for nefarious purposes. Just because we see some negative aspects to the yang does not mean the yin isn't there.

Considering from whom and whence Fiat is created, there can be little question as to what its intent will be. You don't provide profound enough, or accurate enough a comparison though... I envision, Einstein eating the pen out of necessity while holding the nuke button and wondering how in hell he missed his calling as a trader of sticks...or patent holder of compound interest. 
The Human Decision is seldom human by that point...and the stick could not have become the nuke if not for THAT same monopoly which caused the initial lack of choices from the outset.
If, through history, costs and returns most dear to our soul had been considered 'first'(outside the scarcity of 'money'), those ones that HAD a choice would -more often than not- have made the right choice.
Until yeah...space weapons. But hey...let's keep trying here.



 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

2 hours ago, Vengey_Abel said:

Firstly, if you require a reasoned argument for creation of another 'official' currency, I can't do that.

No, I mean as an alternative to currency. I don't care what we're trading as a medium of exchange so long as it's stable and doesn't make my hands stink.

2 hours ago, Vengey_Abel said:

There are, of course many alternatives to having "a" currency... seems plain enough... Yet the result of not having ANY of it happens to be the pawning of everything we're worth just to feed ourselves because any currency at hand is sufficient to "charge" the immediate human need, when the chips are down...no matter what you're worth. Therefore, that's what need be the only required value in it. (ie:// 'Money' can, and always will take care of itself...we just need the bread.)

...so, Yes. We need another means of exchange.
All through time, somewhere in the overall supply we are always bled perfectly dry by the unending lack of it.

Any proof of that? Money always goes into the hands of the most productive (or those that are the best at stealing from the most productive, like most governments and gangs) therefore those without are either lazy deadbeats without even the ability to con/guilt for it or were robbed (and therefore are deserving of support and assistance) by some gang or another. 

2 hours ago, Vengey_Abel said:

So currency has a value unto itself, in that it captures our essence. It is devoid of value without our need, and our faith, so hardly any wonder its natural degradation to our willingness to decide on the side of love(being so deeply embedded in the money illusion) ...and hence that historically high value criminal relationship between banks, churches and gov's known as seigniorage.

You pose the question plainly enough, "What's this other means?"... Well, as the answer evolves, please don't let this dead horse roll over on you... 

So far currency is far superior to the old bartering system. Can there be better? I don't know. Bitcoin (virtual currency) might be the future. Still a currency though.

2 hours ago, Vengey_Abel said:

In fact, I'd be interested to hear what you think -even hypothetically- COULD be more current, or more important a question to answer?  

My question to your answer is this: are you including ANY conceivable kind of currency (from metals to bank notes to stores of rice to whatever) as a problem or just fiat money? On the same note what exactly are your problems with currency? I'd like it in a bullet-point format with very concise and direct complaints. I'm not interested in the hookah you're breathing.

I think the most important questions that need answering, both individually and as a society, are thus;

1: Race and culture. Do we try Civic Nationalism (i.e. no race politics) even though only White folks seem willing to do it en masse? Do we try Ethnic Nationalism (therefore we either have Russian-style ethno-states or a Chinese-style system where one race is over the rest or a European-style system where every race has a country named after it)? Do we try something else, like "Cultural Nationalism" where we hail a common ideal of what man ought to be and a common moral system (like Christianity for Europe, which was arguably one of the big reasons why White folks started to feel bad killing each other instead of seeing each other as mere competitors for regional hegemony)? Or do we keep our heads in the sand and hope the Multikult works out? I'm inclined towards #3 (Cultural Nationalism) with a back-up plan of #2. 

2: Wars of Intervention: Do we keep meddling with other races/cultures and their politics or do we gtfo and only meddle when we're sure they're up to something against us and have warships on the read? Do we strive to become old-European style global hegemonists or so a more soft-domination Chinese Empire-style of regional hegemony through economic and cultural hegemony? Or do we build up our walls and focus inwardly like the old Japanese and only interact with the outside world for trade? I'm inclined towards either Japanese-style isolationism or Chinese-style trade and cultural exchange but without the movement of (large) numbers of people from the outside world (especially if they fit the definition of "barbarian" or "savage") and also without the arrogant Post-Meiji Japan/Colonial-European attitude that it is our sovereign duty as freemen to liberate the enslaved world. 

3: Religion and culture. Sort of like race and culture but more a focus on religion's role in our culture and whether we ought to do this or that about it.

4: Gender relations. Need I say more?

5: Creeping Socialism. Cancer is cancerous. 

6: Unreachable and infallible government. If we're not starting a "civil anarchy" (perhaps a general term for AnCap?) then we may as well rope in the current government and consider replacing it, whether it be replacing the system or just the people is another question. 

7: Voting rights. Whether it be by financial worth, gender, IQ, race, etc. we ought to ask ourselves if universal suffrage is really such a holy right...In fact I'd be willing to argue for the abolition of republicanism in favor of an oligarchical monarchy given the basic premises I haven't spoken of. Point is "who gets a say in what our government does" is a very pertinent question.

8: Demographic decline. Related to number 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1. 

...And probably some more I'm forgetting. Point is whether we ought to have a currency is like asking whether we ought to have to work for a living. Once we've focused on the very real threats on our futures and livelihoods we can go back to the ivory tower, smoke some hookah, and contemplate whether a money-less system is preferable to a monied system. 

...To be clear I'm not dissing the question so much as it's priority. I think it's more important we focus on our survival and prosperity before we focus on the "intellectual luxuries" i.e. I'd rather talk and be active about this sort of thing once the barbarians stop lugging big rocks at our city walls and once the deadbeats stop trying to skewer us in the name of "egalitarianism" and once children are no longer being beat and drugged by their parents and authorities. Once we've secured our great-grandchildren's future in a peaceful, orderly, prosperous, and morally upright society we can talk about how to make it better. Or perhaps we can really go to the podium with this once everyone's got a steady job, the nation-state is no longer committing murder-suicide, and the culture at large no longer casually jokes about the murder of babies and raping of children. 

 

[Fashus Maximus]

On 1/14/2018 at 2:14 AM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

Literally the second sentence of the Wikipedia article reads:

"In a free banking system, market forces control the supply of total quantity of banknotes and deposits that can be supported by any given stock of cash reserves, where such reserves consist either of a scarce commodity (such as gold) or of an artificially limited stock of "fiat" money issued by a central bank."

Thus the "free banking" era was the same as it is today.

The modern banking system is neither free, backed, nor reserved. Also, our central bank is a monopolist unlike what the quote describes, i.e. a central bank among many.

So that's 4 major differences. Did you not notice these or are you implying they are irrelevant?

On 1/14/2018 at 2:14 AM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

Nuclear bombs, satellites, and money are a few exceptions to this.

Money has existed since 9000BC before there was government [src]. Same for rocket technology [src].

Bombs and physics existed prior to government involvement too. Most of the work was already done by the time the government got around to it. Low hanging fruit, tbh. Doesn't really say much in terms of the necessity of government.

[Fashus Maximus]

On 1/20/2018 at 2:47 AM, SnapSlav said:

Or..... they can get out of the way of their own citizens, and you'll find them QUITE capable of kicking out unwanted savages and implementing forms of protection from injurious institutions.

This is about as logical as saying: If you enter in a boxing match, you can either fight your opponent, or your opponent can simply get out of your way and let you knock him out.

Those who have co-opted the levers of government (a certain ethnic tribe that shall not be named), will not simply get out of the way. For them, this is a win-lose game. Closed borders for them, open borders for us. Identity for them, individualism for us. Masculinity for them, feminism for us. Anti-miscegenation for them, race-mixing for us. Ethics for them, liberty for us.

You get the picture. This is an ethnic cold war, and they started it.

On 1/20/2018 at 2:47 AM, SnapSlav said:

It's a bit ironic that you followed a statement condemning over-reliance on government with this comment suggesting that we need to rely on government to do these particular things.

It is not a contradiction to prefer less government where it doesn't result in our death (like private money), but to prefer more government in a race war. If we don't take control, our daughters will give births to abominations, but hey, at least we still have our liberty, tax cuts, and muh constitution, amma right?

We can either take back control of the government and put the savages under our boots, or enjoy watching our own genocide. Don't confuse the NAP or Christianity for pacifism. We have reached the point of "whatever it takes", and the existence of my people is not negotiable.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

41 minutes ago, Fashus Maximus said:

The modern banking system is neither free, backed, nor reserved. Also, our central bank is a monopolist unlike what the quote describes, i.e. a central bank among many.

So that's 4 major differences. Did you not notice these or are you implying they are irrelevant?

Irrelevant. Even during the free banking era, bank notes were supposed to be redeemable in US dollars. Today, bank notes (money orders and cashiers checks) are supposed to be redeemable in US dollars. In either case, government money is and was the actual money. The "free" banking era wasn't an era of private currency, just private institutions making promises with government currency with no government oversight.

45 minutes ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Money has existed since 9000BC before there was government [src].

Your source doesn't mention anything about government or the role money played in those times.

46 minutes ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Same for rocket technology [src].

Bombs and physics existed prior to government involvement too. Most of the work was already done by the time the government got around to it. Low hanging fruit, tbh. Doesn't really say much in terms of the necessity of government.

I don't know why you're talking about rocket technology, bombs, and physics. I said nuclear weapons, satellites, and money. If you think most of the work of making nuclear bombs and satellites was done before government got involved, then I see you don't know much history of the subjects.

[SnapSlav]

4 hours ago, Vengey_Abel said:

Considering from whom and whence Fiat is created, there can be little question as to what its intent will be. You don't provide profound enough, or accurate enough a comparison though... I envision, Einstein eating the pen out of necessity while holding the nuke button and wondering how in hell he missed his calling as a trader of sticks...or patent holder of compound interest. 
The Human Decision is seldom human by that point...and the stick could not have become the nuke if not for THAT same monopoly which caused the initial lack of choices from the outset.
If, through history, costs and returns most dear to our soul had been considered 'first'(outside the scarcity of 'money'), those ones that HAD a choice would -more often than not- have made the right choice.
Until yeah...space weapons. But hey...let's keep trying here.

I'm positive you completely missed the point of what I was saying. I never at ANY point stated (or even insinuated) that the PROCESS of weapons being created was never negative. I stated outright that the evolution of weapons from a primitive level to a modern level was, at its core, an advancement of technology, which is in and of itself neutral in purpose. As one of my favorite quotes puts it: "There's no such thing as 'a pirate ship'! Paint a skull and crossbones on the sails and it's a pirate ship. Paint a seagull on the sails and it's a marine ship." The pistol itself is not evil, it is merely a tool. Its utility and use- or more specifically, the intentions that went into these -are what can be construed as good or bad.

The intention of the user determines the individual use of the tool, not the inventor, not the tool itself. It is just a tool, after all.

[Vengey_Abel]

8 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

I'm positive you completely missed the point of what I was saying. I never at ANY point stated (or even insinuated) that the PROCESS of weapons being created was never negative. I stated outright that the evolution of weapons from a primitive level to a modern level was, at its core, an advancement of technology, which is in and of itself neutral in purpose. As one of my favorite quotes puts it: "There's no such thing as 'a pirate ship'! Paint a skull and crossbones on the sails and it's a pirate ship. Paint a seagull on the sails and it's a marine ship." The pistol itself is not evil, it is merely a tool. Its utility and use- or more specifically, the intentions that went into these -are what can be construed as good or bad.

The intention of the user determines the individual use of the tool, not the inventor, not the tool itself. It is just a tool, after all.

...but a Pirate Ship is not an "illusion" of power, nor is it any more of a weapon than systematic privation used to manifest it. The pistol is neither good nor evil, but its power exists only in the decision at the time of input energy.

[Vengey_Abel]

37 minutes ago, Vengey_Abel said:

...but a Pirate Ship is not an "illusion" of power, nor is it any more of a weapon than systematic privation used to manifest it. The pistol is neither good nor evil, but its power exists only in the decision at the time of input energy.

 

[Vengey_Abel]

In this Time-Stamped statement, Stephan points out that the value that should evoke concern in us is more directly related to the DECISION we make with it than that value of it, for it's "good" can only be quantified in real time, by its relative velocity toward good or toward evil. 

Hence the very value and definition of 'currency' will be either to the negative or positive, yes according to intention, but also according to circumstance.
 (ie:// Having a mountain of money isn't a sin. Spending it into circulation to foment violence, IS...and conversely, one having little to give -yet still giving- is known as virtue.)

The "love" of it then may be initially inspired by greed, yet greed is just one symptom of the greater virtue(love) lost in the pursuit of it.

Love is opted AWAY FROM, solely due to scarcity and co-opted supply lines. Love is a less and less profitable decision; until from a thousand cuts we've created in ourselves something unholy.

If this is the cost of begetting the right of seigniorage to whatever group of co-opted crones occupy Power, then any price is worth undermining that bastion of INFLUENCE, really by whatever means necessary...yet neither while increasing(benefitting) the negative.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Vengey_Abel
Tidying.

[Fashus Maximus]

On 1/25/2018 at 12:51 AM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

Irrelevant. Even during the free banking era, bank notes were supposed to be redeemable in US dollars. Today, bank notes (money orders and cashiers checks) are supposed to be redeemable in US dollars. In either case, government money is and was the actual money. The "free" banking era wasn't an era of private currency, just private institutions making promises with government currency with no government oversight.

Ok, Scotland then.

On 1/25/2018 at 12:51 AM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

Your source doesn't mention anything about government or the role money played in those times.

The role of money is in the definition of money. I also didn't think I'd need a source to show that the first evidence of a state was in 3000BC, but here it is. Anyhow, money predates the state. A can't be the cause of B if B came first.

On 1/25/2018 at 12:51 AM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

I don't know why you're talking about rocket technology, bombs, and physics. I said nuclear weapons, satellites, and money.

Because they are the prerequisites and government played no part. In all 3 things, 99% of the work was already done before the government contributed to the nuclear project or satellites.

On 1/25/2018 at 12:51 AM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

If you think most of the work of making nuclear bombs and satellites was done before government got involved, then I see you don't know much history of the subjects.

If you think the prerequisites of nukes and satellites was done after the government got involved, then I see you don't know much physics or engineering.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

4 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Ok, Scotland then.

From the Wikipedia article: "Scottish free banking lasted between 1716 and 1845, and is arguably the most researched and developed instance of free banking.^[12] The system was organized around three chartered banks, the Bank of Scotland, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and the British Linen Company, and numerous unchartered banks. It resulted in a highly stable and competitive banking system.^[13][14]"

From the Bank of Scotland wiki:

"The Bank of Scotland plc (Scottish Gaelic: Banca na h-Alba)^[2] is a commercial and clearing bank based in Edinburgh, Scotland. With a history dating to the 17th century, it is the fifth-oldest surviving bank in the United Kingdom (the Bank of England having been established one year before), and is the only commercial institution created by the Parliament of Scotland to remain in existence. It was one of the first banks in Europe to print its own banknotes and it continues to print its own sterling banknotes under legal arrangements which allow Scottish banks to issue currency."

It was still a legal arrangement. Thus state-issued. Banks issue credit in a similar fashion today: it's a legal arrangement.

4 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

The role of money is in the definition of money. I also didn't think I'd need a source to show that the first evidence of a state was in 3000BC, but here it is. Anyhow, money predates the state. A can't be the cause of B if B came first.

I'm getting ready to read the book, but in my talks with Nima, according to David Graeber in the book Debt: The First 5000 Years, there is no archaeological evidence supporting the existence of the barter system. Money has been state-created from the start. The source you provided doesn't actually give any evidence of money from 9000 BC. Just mentions something about cows.

4 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Because they are the prerequisites and government played no part. In all 3 things, 99% of the work was already done before the government contributed to the nuclear project or satellites.
If you think the prerequisites of nukes and satellites was done after the government got involved, then I see you don't know much physics or engineering.

From Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, p. 848:

"The greatest achievement of science during the war, and, indeed, in all human history, 
was the atom bomb. [...] The only human discovery which can compare 
with it was man's invention of the techniques of farming almost nine thousand years 
earlier, but this earlier advance was slow and empirical. The advance to the atom bomb 
was swift and theoretical, in which men, by mathematical calculations, were able to 
anticipate, measure, judge, and control events which had never happened previously in 
human experience. It is not possible to understand the history of the twentieth century 
without some comprehension of how this almost unbelievable\goal was achieved and 
especially why the Western Powers were able to achieve it, and the Fascist Powers were 
not.

...

In a similar way the remaining German scientists, although seeking the bomb, decided in 
February 1942 that large-scale separation of isotopes was too expensive to be practical, 
and spent the rest of the war years on the hopeless task of trying to devise an atomic pile 
which could be used as a bomb. The great German error was their failure to reach the 
conception of "critical mass," the point which had been published in Russia in 1940. 

...

When the curtain of secrecy fell in June 1940, all the theory needed for the task was 
known by all capable physicists; what was not known was (1) that their theories would 
work, and (2) how the immense resources needed for the task could be mobilized. As late 
as 1939, less than an ounce of uranium metal had ever been made in the United States. 

...

Until May 1, 1943, these complex projects were operated by committees and 
subcommittees of scientists of which the chief chairmen were James B. Conant, 
Vannevar Bush, E. O. Lawrence, Harold Urey, and A. O. Compton. The actual 
construction work was delegated to the United States Army Corps of Engineers in charge 
of Leslie R. Groves, an expert on constructing buildings, whose chief achievement was 
the Pentagon Building in Washington.

...

This obsession was based on [Grove's] belief that the project involved fundamental scientific secrets (there were no such 
secrets). His efforts were quite in vain, as the only real secrets, the technological ones 
regarding isotope separation, critical mass, and trigger mechanisms of the bombs, were 
revealed to the Soviet Union, almost as soon as they were achieved, by British scientists."

What the government did that the free market did not wasn't physics, it was engineering. The entire facilities of the country were required in order to facilitate the refining of enough uranium and plutonium to make the bombs, and it was done by government order. Maybe the free market could have done it eventually, but it didn't. Government made it first.