This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Iceland Stuns Banks: Plans To Take Back The Power To Create Money
Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,
Who knew that the revolution would start with those radical Icelanders? It does, though. One Frosti Sigurjonsson, a lawmaker from the ruling Progress Party, issued a report today that suggests taking the power to create money away from commercial banks, and hand it to the central bank and, ultimately, Parliament.
Can’t see commercial banks in the western world be too happy with this. They must be contemplating wiping the island nation off the map. If accepted in the Iceland parliament , the plan would change the game in a very radical way. It would be successful too, because there is no bigger scourge on our economies than commercial banks creating money and then securitizing and selling off the loans they just created the money (credit) with.
Everyone, with the possible exception of Paul Krugman, understands why this is a very sound idea. Agence France Presse reports:
Iceland Looks At Ending Boom And Bust With Radical Money Plan
Iceland’s government is considering a revolutionary monetary proposal – removing the power of commercial banks to create money and handing it to the central bank. The proposal, which would be a turnaround in the history of modern finance, was part of a report written by a lawmaker from the ruling centrist Progress Party, Frosti Sigurjonsson, entitled “A better monetary system for Iceland”.
“The findings will be an important contribution to the upcoming discussion, here and elsewhere, on money creation and monetary policy,” Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson said. The report, commissioned by the premier, is aimed at putting an end to a monetary system in place through a slew of financial crises, including the latest one in 2008.
According to a study by four central bankers, the country has had “over 20 instances of financial crises of different types” since 1875, with “six serious multiple financial crisis episodes occurring every 15 years on average”. Mr Sigurjonsson said the problem each time arose from ballooning credit during a strong economic cycle.
He argued the central bank was unable to contain the credit boom, allowing inflation to rise and sparking exaggerated risk-taking and speculation, the threat of bank collapse and costly state interventions. In Iceland, as in other modern market economies, the central bank controls the creation of banknotes and coins but not the creation of all money, which occurs as soon as a commercial bank offers a line of credit. The central bank can only try to influence the money supply with its monetary policy tools.
Under the so-called Sovereign Money proposal, the country’s central bank would become the only creator of money. “Crucially, the power to create money is kept separate from the power to decide how that new money is used,” Mr Sigurjonsson wrote in the proposal. “As with the state budget, the parliament will debate the government’s proposal for allocation of new money,” he wrote.
Banks would continue to manage accounts and payments, and would serve as intermediaries between savers and lenders. Mr Sigurjonsson, a businessman and economist, was one of the masterminds behind Iceland’s household debt relief programme launched in May 2014 and aimed at helping the many Icelanders whose finances were strangled by inflation-indexed mortgages signed before the 2008 financial crisis.
* * *
»
- 68512 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Oy gevalt! Sheygetz!! Last pure white country on earth will have signed its own death warrant if goes forward. Will join ranks of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, etc. Look what international jewish money power did to Third Reich for breaking away. Beware JEWISH LIGHTNING! OY VEY!!
I'm sorry, but what does this accomplish? Is the 'central bank' still creating fiat money? So, instead of private indiscriminate money creation from nothing, now the gubmit will do it? Yeah, that'll be much better.
Fiat is still fiat - can't put lipstick on a turd.
Is this what our constitution, may it rest in peace, would call sound money? No it is not.
Lower interest rate for consumers.
No markups!
Stay Frosti, my friend...
"Hitler did this" No, he didn't. Schecht (not Hitler) used a variant of real bills where money was created only if it was to be used for particular projects and was counterbalenced with MEFO bonds. The discovery that inflation is damped down in currency creation if a like amount of bonds are sold, came from the experience of the Civil War. The first Greenbacks issued were highly inflationary and then they hit on the idea of selling war bonds and also issuing notes that paid interest. So Iceland's proposal is more akin to Lincoln and the first money creation to fund the Civil War. You have to read Fekete and the concept of real bills becomes plain.
was just reading
the lost kingdom of the khazars
and the heroes hebrew histories.
it clearly states in black and white and a little child blood red
that the land of the ice lands belongs to the sons and sucking brothers of caanaan
it is written
so it must be true.
these goy animals on the ice lands must flee before the isis landings and cuming false flags terror
already judas approachings
we come from the land of the ice and snow from the mnidnight sun where the hot springs flow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC-T0rC6m7I
I'd like to borrow money at .25%
Better off creating it from thin air then lending it out at interest.
Downside is, that would make you a bankster.
How could you live with yourself?
Meanwhile, back in USA we are collectively sucking fed C__k.
Technically, you're sucking commercial bank cock.
If you were sucking .25% of a cock, you wouldn't mind as much.
My comfort zone, when it comes to sucking cock is 0%.
.25% is WAAAYY too much.
All money is law, including commodity money. Commodity money gets its legal privledge from its stamp.
Metal by weight cannot flex to the volume needs of a modern economy. The mismatch between physical tangible and intangible ledger money historically was used to take rents.
Law will hold the volume in alignment with goods/services. Law will make sure contracts are not usurious. Law done in advance can have morality encoded. Money settles contracts, a legal function.
The Greenbacks were NEVER printed in greater amounts than Congress Authorized. Continentals only inflated because BRITISH (Bank of England) counterfeited the the hell out of them.
Most people imagine monetary history rather than looking at real evidence.
I agree, Iceland will come under attack.
But, consider, it takes a high IQ, high trust population - of a nearly homogenous ethnicity, to break away from private credit money powers.
Average Icelandics are probably more mentally capable of understanding the subtleties of money power than other groups. I expect they will fight.
"...
Most people imagine monetary history rather than looking at real evidence.
...."
speak for yourself.
"...
But, consider, it takes a high IQ, high trust population - of a nearly homogenous ethnicity, to break away from private credit money powers.
..."
geez, the japanese come to mind. and here I thought they were the poster boys in how to take foreign economic poison memes and commit mass suicide.
Icelans bans APR markup on borrowing money!
Doesn't matter, anyone that can create money will become corrupt. Period.
Just waiting for the calls to invade Iceland, or overthrow the tyrannical dicator in charge, or color revolution on the news tomorrow.
Iceland is small enough to get away with it.
They are energy independent with a form of energy that is almost impossible to steal, so they have no energy issues.
MSM won't flag it, to protect the status quo, so no need to do much about it.
If they did mention it, it would be self-defeating.
Looks like those Icelanders have mostly got it made.
Awesome landscape too.
Downside?
The last time one of their volcanoes REALLY went off, it killed damn near everything on the island.
On a long enough timeline.......
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/obama-signs-executive-order-i...
President Barack Obama has signed a new executive orderthat imposes new economic sanctions on anyone who perpetrates cyber attacks against American interests, putting into practice an idea that has been floated for at least two years.
That would mean that if the United States can effectively identify a person or group of people conducting such breaches, and who have assets Stateside, then those assets could be frozen or have related financial transactions severely hindered.
"Starting today, we’re giving notice to those who pose significant threats to our security or economy by damaging our critical infrastructure, disrupting or hijacking our computer networks, or stealing the trade secrets of American companies or the personal information of American citizens for profit," the president wrote on Medium.
-------------------
This is a pretty broad based XO and includes anyone who may cause problems for the financial well being of the country. This would include any news type blog that exposes government waste, cronyism. exposure of wrong doing etc.. Iceland is at the forefront of internet privacy and dealing with corrupt banks. This XO IMHO not only targets Iceland, but also includes anyone else such as ZH et.al. including citizen journalists/bloggers here in the good ole US of A.
....makes ya wonder how Obla-bla is gonna deal with the AI "problem".
What a putz.
What about the other way around!
It will be perfectly fine for the US. to steal corporate secrets or to hinder foreign companies or .gov's as long as it helps the us hedgemony!
Fkn HYPOCRITES!
RECTAL BLEEDING I WISH. where's Richie?
Hope they made a secret deal with the Russians before. If the FSB or the GRU are not there to protect them from CIA/OTPOR, it will be game season on the Icelandic Vikings.
Bomb Iceland into the stone age!
It would be successful too, because there is no bigger scourge on our economies than commercial banks creating money and then securitizing and selling off the loans they just created the money (credit) with.
It would eliminate the second largest leak in an improperly managed MOE ... that being the interest load the central bank middleman takes.
But it leaves the biggest "scourge" ... that being the government counterfeiting the money (i.e. creating money and giving it to themselves with no intention of ever paying it back).
This will end badly, with the commercial banks coming back saying, see ... you need us for discipline.
It's enough to make you puke!
Nice Kinda like North Dakota.
"Iceland has WMDs and Niger yellow-cake!"
"Paging Colin Powell. Paging Colin Powell to the UN."
"Paul Bremer, pack your bags again. You have some more of Zion's medicine to dispense."
The banksters need to repay us.
I wonder how much gold Iceland has?
Forget gold - is Iceland the one with the hot blondes - and not those ABBA chicks. I can take the cold
Bad teeth. All of them.
Under the so-called Sovereign Money proposal, the country’s central bank would become the only creator of money.
Under any properly managed Medium of Exchange (MOE), money is created by traders when they make trading promises that span time and space and get them certified (recorded). It is extinguished when traders deliver on those trading promises. In the mean time, it trades in simple barter as the most desired object of one party in virtually all simple barter trades.
Letting a central bank (i.e. sovereign or government) "create" money solves nothing. It will still allow the sovereign to counterfeit money (create money and give it to themselves with no intention of ever delivering on the trade, thereby returning and extinguishing the money). It will still be the sovereign's principle method of financing itself (e.g. through INFLATION ... just using taxes to pay the illusion of INTEREST collections ... which their subjects accept as a legitimate way of financing themselves).
Agree with your point but disagree there would be no difference. We must end private central banking because it places too much money and too much power in too few private hands. This creates the evil behind the thrown. It is also fundamentally anti-democratic. In fact, it actively undermines democracy and democratic institutions. There is ample evidence to support this glaring fact. Central banking must be put back into the hands and control of the people and democratic institutions. Far better that a national bank, created and chartered to operate in the public interest, exist, than to put this power over life and death in the hands of a few rich and self-interested men. While it may not eliminate all problems, it will certainly eliminate some, including banker's wars and wars for profit. It will also put some checks and balances in place. Eliminate private central banking and you eliminate a scourge on humanity.
When the Medium of Exchange (MOE) is properly managed, there is zero profit in banking.
America here we have seen this show.
hold on wait a rothschild cotton pickin minute here you viking anti semites
how very dare you sir...
the empire of the city of london will have non of this foolishness ness
Does Iceland have nukes? If not, they better get on it.
I envision oligarchships descending into Iceland from Tel Ahebe loaded with snipers.
Point of order, The Red Shield would Never address them;
"how very dare you sir..."
more like
"how very dare you peasants..."
Fixed for ya
They're still handing the power to create money and control the money supply to an elite group of people. In fact, that power is now in even more concentrated, centralized hands. The idea should be to decentralize power and spread it across the widest base possible ( ideally putting it in the hands of the individual ). This seems like a horrible idea and I predict even worse results from this.
I wonder how long before the bankers media spin doctors start to spin this the way they did to the swiss gold referendum
Eliminate Banks.
Eliminate CentralBanks.
Eliminate Governments.
Then all systemic money problems will VANISH.
Then all systemic money problems will VANISH.
Eliminating those three players ... and thereby the current counterfeiting creators of money, what next honestann?
What's next is for humans to decide how to live their own lives, and to deal with each other in whatever mutually voluntary ways they wish. That plus human predators who attempt to harm others get bullets through the head.
Which means, humans would need to start accepting the responsibility for eliminating predators. And unfortunately, that's too big a hurdle for modern humans (to recognize human predators for what they are (predators) and then defend themselves).
And thus, humans are a failed species.
And thus, humans are finished.
-----
Essentially, the main reason ZH is essentially pointless at this point in history is precisely what I said above. The truth (and understanding of reality) is irrelevant to all humans who are so insane they cannot identify what exists and doesn't, as well as those who refuse to take necessary actions (like "do not sanction, support or obey predators" and also "practice self-defense against them").
Unfortunately, in a world populated by 99.999% insane humans, the only two practical choices are to remove oneself from the human population (my solution), or suffer, then die.
honestann: "humans are a failed species". ehmm... no. from a biological point of view, a failed species is one that fails to conquer new habitats, is in a shrinking ecological niche and quietly goes... extinct
look at humans, you'll find them everywhere on the globe. you, my dear honestann, are one of the human pioneers, trying to live in a not-yet-populated environment
look around. some two hundred sovereign polities, some five hundred major nationalities, some three thousand written languages and over ten thousand cultures
the only thing that really irks you is that there is no territory whatsoever without some political/military/judicial arrangement. and this does not make you think... why
you know why? because you are... a pioneer. your innate wish is to find such a territory. in biological terms, you try to conquer a new habitat. sadly for you, we don't have interstellar travel, otherwise you'd emigrate to a human-empty planet
and probably others would follow you, and if everything would work in the best possible way you'd have a grumbling old age where you would note often that "your" planet has a political/military/judicial arrangement of sort that was not needed at all as long as you were the only one on that planet
in short, it's not the other humans. it's... you
you drank too much of the anarcho-liberal/libertarian kool-aid and you have lost contact to how humans behave in groups. in part also because you have that "pioneering" instinct/ideology in you
and so you call them a "failed species", where the failure is only in the mental model you use to understand humans
my advice: try chimps and bonobos, for a while, make notes, and then look again at humans. alternatively, if you dislike monkeys, try dolphins, or wolfes
then according to your theory, ants are a failed species, too. particularly that strain of ants that is conquering the world by being pacific versus it's own strongly related strains and aggressive versus all the others
I say humans are a failed species (and "finished") because humans are on an apparently irreversible path to extinction. Not because the sun will soon go nova (which would not be human failure, but merely bad luck/timing), but because humans will allow themselves to be destroyed by human predators. During this process the human predators may destroy themselves too. And if they don't, they'll likely exterminate themselves in the process of fighting each other.
While none of the above is preordained, humans would have to radically change to avoid some variant of the above fate. This is possible (meaning within the capability of human beings), but extremely unlikely because humans accept utterly bogus fictions as being real (and the most important aspects of reality and life)... and they recognize, sanction, support, finance, vote-for and tolerate the worst human predators that have ever existed.
One thing that is not clear about my meaning of "humans are a failed species" and "humans are finished" is the following. While I think it is likely humans will exterminate themselves, it is possible some infinitesimal percentage will survive... either by means of extremely low-tech ways (living in strange micro-environments in extreme boonies), or by means of extremely high-tech ways (space habitation, inorganic consciousness, etc).
While some might claim that humans are not a failed species and not finished if something like 0.00000001% of human beings survive, I consider that constitutes being a "failed species" and "finished". While low-tech survivors may retain human DNA, their behavior will necessarily be unrecognizable to something like 99.9999% of human beings on the planet at this time. As you know, I expect high-tech survivors will soon become inorganic, and thus technically not human (even if intellectually somewhat similar to the most sane, insightful, intelligent of modern humans). So we may have somewhat different standards for what constitutes "a failed species" and/or "finished".
Of course I know why there is no frontier on planet earth (meaning, not controlled by human predators pretending to be various kinds of fictions, mostly "government"). I've expressed the reason about 1000 times in ZH messages, and to repeat, the answer is, almost all modern humans are insane (don't recognize fictions like "government" are fictional, and are just names for the most egregious packs of human predators in various regions of the planet), and because humans refuse to defend themselves (kill predators that harm and enslave them).
No need for interstellar travel. What most people don't realize is... independent sentient beings are better off when interstellar travel doesn't exist. Well, I don't mean that literally, but I do mean when faster-than-light travel doesn't exist. Interstellar travel is still possible without FTL travel, but... the expansion rate is radically lower. The fact is, the size and nature of outer space is such that human predators cannot control or tax individuals and small groups without FTL travel, for reasons I've outlined before.
I'm not sure what you mean by "conquer" a new habitat, but I have no interest in "conquer" in any reasonable sense. We don't want to take material or territory from anyone, and we won't have to. In this universe, there is plenty to go around, to astronomically understate the situation. If "conquer" means "learn to live in" a new habitat, then I agree.
I am quite certain "others will follow" if they can. My guess is, nobody else will be able to follow because the predators who control the earth will make sure of that before any (or at least many) get off this planet in a sustainable way.
You say...
in short, it's not the other humans. it's... you
I don't know what that's supposed to mean. But if you're trying to blame humans who do NOT wish to harm, control or enslave others because virtually all other humans support this corrupt and destructive behavior, then boy do you have things totally and fundamentally backwards.
Oh, I know precisely how humans behave in groups. I lived all but the past 3+ years in those groups, albeit in lowish-population density areas (but not extreme boonies). And I didn't drink any koolaide either, not of any flavor, since this has been my attitude and conclusion since before I ever heard those terms and ideas. And frankly, I don't agree with at least 99% of the expressions of those ideas.
For example, at least 99% of advocates of "anarchy" say "we don't want government", while I have clearly stated endless times here in ZH that "governments do not exist, cannot exist, and are inherently fictional abstractions". So I don't promote anarchy, since no alternative to anarchy can possibly exist. Of course insanity is overwhelmingly common to human beings, so something like 99.99999% don't realize this.
Just because a human being is alive, does not exclude them from being "a failure" in my mind. Perhaps being alive is sufficient in your mind, but most definitely not in mine.
Note that I have no problem whatsoever with animal predators. Why? They don't know any better. They are what they are, and for practical purposes have no choice to behave fundamentally different than they do. I also have no problem with human predators who are honest about what they are, and expect to be summarily exterminated just as they are willing to summarily exterminate others (or have others do so, or sanction, support, finance others who do so). I accept predators coming after me. I will simply kill them, or they will kill me. That's life. That's reality.
What I have an objection to is the radical insanity that passes for "normal human being" who pretends to be honest, ethical, productive, benevolent, civilized, rational... and expects to be treated consistent with sentient beings of this sort, but is in fact a predator, or sanctions predators, or supports predators, or finances predators. They wish actually honest, ethical, productive, benevolent beings to treat them as one of their kind, when in fact they are precisely the opposite. Thus, I object to the OVERT FRAUD (you often call this "lies") and the inherent dishonesty and corruption of this behavior, as well as the HARM and DESTRUCTION they cause (you often call this "violence")... plus the very nasty consequences of these behaviors (compared to how great life could otherwise be).
An attempt to assess the behavior of bacteria, ants, scorpions, chimps and humans on the same basis (with the same conversation) while ignoring the radical differences in their nature is an exercise in disingenuous. That's like pretending eggnog, donuts, trees and spacecraft are comparable in important ways because... they are all composed of atoms. That's just disingenuous, unless all you care about is whether they are composed of atoms. That's a very non-informative to assess reality.
the answer is, almost all modern humans are insane (don't recognize fictions like "government" are fictional, and are just names for the most egregious packs of human predators in various regions of the planet), and because humans refuse to defend themselves (kill predators that harm and enslave them).
Presumably you have two attributes "almost all modern humans" don't have. (1) You are not insane. (2) You know insanity when you see it.
There "is" a need to allow simple barter to be extended over time and space.
With your clear advantage over "almost all modern humans", can you tell us (insane humans) how that can be done?
Or with your clear advantage over "almost all modern humans" do you "know" that there is "no need to allow simple barter to be extended over time and space?"
If by "barter" you mean "exchange", how about decentralized currencies (gold, silver, bitcoin, etc.) or peer to peer credit (reputation based, secured, real notes, etc., etc.) or barter itself (direct exchange). There is also gift economy and a variety of other things.
If by "barter" you mean "exchange",
Trade happens in three steps: (1) Negotiation, (2) Promise to deliver, (3) Delivery. With simple barter, (2) and (3) happen simultaneously, on-the-spot. Is that the meaning of "exchange?"
how about decentralized currencies (gold, silver, bitcoin, etc.)
What problem does that solve? I have no bitcoins at all. The amount of gold and silver I have come nowhere near amounting to what I need to carry on my personal commerce. And none of those "decentralized currencies" are accepted where I go to trade for gasoline or groceries or shelter. None are offered where I go to trade my labor for things I need and want. None offer me a useful store of value (where over great time and distances they have the same power in trade).
or peer to peer credit (reputation based, secured, real notes, etc., etc.)
What is an example of that? Is the peering universal or must some organization be joined to be a compatible peer? If such peering works, is it currently being employed right now to advantage over all other methods? If it is reputation based, how and when does a peer obtain a reputation?
or barter itself (direct exchange).
What I first have to exchange is my labor (or a promise to deliver it over some period of time and space). This exchange is only offered reliably by my employer. As a self employed contractor it is only of value over some period of negotiation, and except in rare cases, what I trade my labor for is money (media of exchange ... a promise to complete a trade)... not food, or gas, or shelter, or entertainment.
There is also gift economy and a variety of other things.
Please explain how I use that when exchanging what I have (labor) for what I want or need (gas, food, shelter, entertainment, ...)
Do you really find any of the things you recommend that I try to be improvements over our current (and varied) Media of Exchange? Assuming in the affirmative, do you, yourself, employ them in your day to day trading?Do you employ them in your trading spanning time and space?
If not, why not?
If so, how?
Exchange includes (2) Promise to deliver (I would say promises) and (3) Delivery.
Sales for currencies which are scarce goods (generally that requires that issuance happens through expense of resources) is a particular type of barter, so there too (2) and (3) happen simultaneously. When the good delivered to you is not the final good you want to have but only an intermediary one (e.g. gold), it still counts as a delivery and an exchange.
So the decentralized currencies solve the need for trust. You don't need to trust the counterparty; you don't need to trust a middleman. Furthermore, you can issue the currency without any counterparty at all (e.g. pan a river for gold). Decentralized currencies work even with people you don't have anything in common with except the understanding of the currency. I think that is a lower barrier to overcome than what is necessary with the other alternatives that I know of.
Is not gold satisfactory enough for you? It could definitely be better, but I personally find it satisfactory.
By peer to peer credit I mean all kinds of credit where at least the crediting itself happens without an intermediary (although there may be an intermediary e.g. for clearing, etc.). There are time-based currencies, Local Exchange Trading Systems, Community Exchange Systems, Ripple, real bills (not "real notes"), borrowing your brother's car and every other similar thing you can think of or someone has thought of. I haven't explored this area too much but I don't like the fact that some of those schemes still have some sort of intermediaries or centralization when it is not fundamentally necessary. I'm confident that in the near future we will have a protocol for mutual credit similar to bitcoin in popularity and technology used (if we don't already have it and I am not well aware of it).
We all have at least some informal reputation for something. We usually start with small, low risk trades and eventually accumulate a reputation. Think of ebay. It's a centralized system and you sell goods for money, but you can also have something like that which is completely decentralized and you sell goods for credits, lend goods, lend money, etc. You can obtain a reputation for different things: honesty, timeliness, you may even have some sort of credit instrument where the borrower has the freedom to choose how much interest to pay (if any) and he/she would obtain a reputation for how reasonable the chosen rate is and lenders would choose how much to lend based on that reputation. Just unleash your imagination.
Just go read about it. I don't have all the answers, just mentioning examples to show how many different social constructs people have invented and experimented with over the millenia, many of which are yet to be proven obsolete or viable, superior or inferior.
Basically, from what I know, the two best things overall are gold and Bitcoin, but anything else which is voluntary (so does not involve taxation, barriers to exit, etc.) and has at least some advantage over others deserves some attention. I would recommend using both gold and bitcoin for the long term and keep an eye for good peer to peer credit protocols/systems. I think that the combination of gold (for its low volatility) and bitcoin (for its transactional convenience and other advantages) is superior to fiat and other centralized systems.
I've done practically no trade between precious metals and other goods or services. I've done some trade with bitcoin but it has so far been more play than any serious business, but hey! I believe one should enjoy one's work as one enjoys a game in order to have a happy life. I've sold a few things online for bitcoin and kept it and it's up in value. Won a little more here and there.
Bitcoin is very well suited to business spanning the globe. You may still need to convert some back and forth with more stable currencies in order to mitigate the volatility or with more widely accepted currencies, depending on the type of business you run. You could sell goods and services online for bitcoin, perhaps under a pseudonym, and you can relieve an enormous burden on your margin right out the gate, compared to much of the competition, by simply not paying any taxes. What's to stop you from doing business, earning a reputation and profits under a pseudonym, hiding your tracks with TOR, bitcoin mixing, etc. and then convert some of the laundered bitcoins into precious metals for savings, spend some directly (all kinds of businesses accept bitcoin these days), convert into fiat only for immediate spending (only if you happen to become rich and want to spend a lot you can then start worrying about how not to get extorted by some crooks).
You don't seem to have read anything I have written here before. Suffice it to say, what you are recommending (as being different from what we already have) is not evident to me.
I'm left with two immediate questions from what you write:
(1) What does fiat mean to you in this context?
(2) What is the proper amount of inflation (i.e. the extent to which total DEFAULTs exceed total INTEREST collections)?
By your own admission you favor Bitcoin. And by your own admission, the Bitcoins you have accumulated have grown in value. That given, if Bitcoins were a proper solution to our MOE problems, would they have grown in value?
You have written a long reply and I would be happy to comment on each of your points and the fallacies of most. You have learned your lessons well. I was taught those same lessons and I learned and used them well too.
Now you must come to realize the lessons you learned were totally bogus.
I am not a fan of bitcoin precisely because what one party receives has ZERO intrinsic value. Sadly, you can't convert a bitcoin back to the electricity required to "mine it". If you could, I'd be a HUGE fan.
In the specific case of trade, precisely the most important aspect is for both parties to receive goods and/or goodies that have equal value.
HOWEVER... many of your other examples of peer-to-peer schemes are GREAT.
Don't let yourself be sucked in to support for bitcoin just because the various technologies involved are GREAT for other purposes.
Having said that, I'm not terribly down on bitcoin-like technology for nearly instantaneous events, like moving value from place to place efficiently (across oceans). But then again, this doesn't require bitcoin itself.
Plus, no matter how secure and private you consider bitcoin (and blockchain) technology to be, they don't come close to physical exchanges of physical goods between two individuals in a closed room or in a forest or in a cave somewhere (depending on how important privacy is in each case).
Based on your comments honestann, you obviously favor simple anonymous barter that spans space. Seems you've given up on the "spans time" requirement.
The obvious problem with simple anonymous barter is that it is nearly impossible to find someone who has what you "want" and "wants" what you have and for you to not know who each other are. Money is the intermediary.
Thus, money must become something that you "want" in "all" trades. It must be something that is "wanted" by others in "all" trades. It must be something that can be exchanged without a trace of the transaction. Additionally, it must be something that can be proven to be authentic (non-counterfeit).
Not only must money work over space, it must work over extended time. If your trade takes twenty years (e.g. buying a home), you don't want your money to change value at all over that time with respect to the object you are trading and the object you are trading for.
Got any ideas honestann?
As usual, you ignore my answer to this question (elsewhere in the past couple days). I'm not going to answer this again. I did describe interactions that occur over extended time. You just want to ignore that to pretend a bunch of arbitrary nonsense that involves additional parties is NECESSARY. You are flat-out wrong about that.
Of course, humans CAN adopt those many-party schemes, but they will suffer the consequences. The largest of which is human predators will screw them over left and right. Enjoy that kind of world if you wish. I prefer to avoid those kinds of messes at every opportunity.
There is some confusion about the term "intrinsic value" because there are several things different people mean by it.
That's not the case with gold either.
Some think of "intrinsic value" (in the context of money) as value for uses other than the monetary use. Gold trades at a market value which depends on demand from both industrial use and monetary use. One might look at gold as two assets in one: an industrial commodity and a monetary asset combined. If gold was not used monetarily the demand for it would be a fraction of what it is and the marked value would be much lower than it is in reality. So, by that definition, gold has a little intrinsic value and bitcoin has none, or close to none (it's debatable; at least some people valued it enough to spend data storage resources, etc. in order to keep it, even before it had any value for monetary purposes or a market value). But then is such intrinsic value so important as to make gold attractive as a currency and bitcoin - completely unattractive?
Another thing people mean by "intrinsic value" is "value independent of things that are not contained in the object". So value which depends on future actions or inaction by people, such as future settlement or non-counterfeiting, is not intrinsic. But one thing to understand is that the Bitcoin protocol is a settlement system (and a good one). So while technically you want to not only have exclusive control over the private keys but to also have access to a copy of the blockchain, and you also want the game theory around the protocol to work out as intended, (not have a continuous and effective attack on the Bitcoin blockchain and any alternatives that may emerge) it is Bitcoin's goal to make this practical, and I think it works well. Private keys are small enough to even memorize; even a single copy of the blockchain kept by an untrusted source is enough to verify the whole history of all transactions; incentives are such that attacks are very hard, expensive and/or ineffective. So, while bitcoins don't have intrinsic value by this definition, Bitcoin the protocol does provide good assurances that your value is safe from future actions or inactions by people.
It is worth noting that bitcoin has very different security characteristics from goods with intrinsic value, which are vulnerable to physical theft, while, on the other hand, one can defend bitcoins from physical theft with e.g. encryption, or a memorized Bitcoin private key or seed.
If you mean something different by "intrinsic value", please clarify.
The thing with the other potential peer to peer schemes, such as those based on credit (so no intrinsic value there either) is that they don't exist yet, at least not in a level of maturity comparable to even Bitcoin (which is not super mature). I think Bitcoin is good for the present and that it would be a good stepping stone for future related protocols and systems.
As for privacy, again Bitcoin has different characteristics from physical exchange, but not all inferior characteristics. For example, you can now easily and securely exchange anything for bitcoin while protecting even the identities of the two transacting parties from each other. Privacy in face to face exchange is defeated if your counterparty is malicious or merely careless (e.g. not making sure his/her phone is free of malware recording everything you say or do). How would you avoid that with physical exchange? Use trusted third parties? Use robots? It would be complicated.
If you're looking for magic answers that work easily and without difficulties within the conventional (urban and suburban) western world, then I don't have any. I can make a few suggestions that should make lives somewhat easier in the conventional western world, but I'm not magic, and ideas are not magic... they only work so well, and get you so far.
Though I love the boonies, and I love the simple life, I am also an extreme techie. Which means, I am psychologically incapable of living without trade. Of course, I most certainly prefer barter over normal trade that leaves a huge paperwork trail pointing back to me.
But still, I don't have my own fab line to make integrated circuits, and I don't have time to create every tool and device I need (though I probably could at this point in my life given a modern machine shop and a fab line). And so, I accept the "shame" that I cannot be happy without exchanging goods with other humans.
Interestingly, if I didn't have the tech-addiction that I do have, I am now in a position where trade is unnecessary. I have everything I need to live the rest of my life. I grow and raise my own food, have my own pristine water source, have enough fuel in storage to power my airplane (which I don't actually need to survive). If every human died tonight, I could live a long and happy life without trade.
But before you say it, I'll admit, I couldn't have gotten here without trade. I never said that if I was born alone on planet earth that I'd have my own computers, be working on advanced inorganic consciousness, and preparing to leave planet earth. Not so. Depending on where I was born, the chances are probably somewhere between 1% and 20% that I'd still be alive today on a planet without a single human being to trade with.
So I don't want to fly under false pretences.
However, my survival probabilities would have been greatly enhanced by being sane, even in such an odd situation (without humans, without trade, without help of any kind).
If you're saying "trade" and "division of labor" is very beneficial, you'll get no argument from me! I agree.
Simple barter is simple. So simple that I have to assume your question is a trick question in some way. Simple barter is this. You want something. You find someone who has what you want. You offer to exchange something you have for what they have. If they don't need what you have, you either go look for someone else who has what you want, or you ask what they want, then go find someone who has that to exchange with you.
This process can involve a lot of "wasted" time and effort trying to find a chain of compatible wants and haves. Which is why "money" (like "trade") is also a very enabling human convention. Once lots of people accept gold in exchange for the goods they'd like to trade, life becomes much easier for everyone, because that search process is eliminated.
Of course, in a predatory existence, where "money" doesn't exist but "fiat paper" does... and that "fiat paper" has foolishly become accepted by most folks as real money (gold, silver, something with intrinsic value), problems arise (taxes, information trails, etc). Which pushes some of us back to trading real items with real value rather than fiat paper. When most humans are totally accustomed to trading fiat paper instead of real money, some of the efficiency is lost, of course. Yet, trading real money for goods is still more efficient than adopting fiat money, and all that implies (taxation of trade; records, paper trails and lack of privacy; punishment for utterly benevolent behavior that is not approved by the predators-that-be, etc).
But... as my experiences and experiment proved, we can still trade real money (and/or goods) for other real money (and/or goods) in the world today. It works fine. And in many ways, it makes like much more efficient, much more secure, much more private, much more satisfying, and much more stress-free).
Finally, you ask whether there is "no need to allow simple barter to be extended over time and space".
Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about here. I have a feeling you're trying to set me up somehow.
If you're asking whether humans can agree to exchange goods at a later time, my answer is "sure they can". I'm not sure why you would distinguish this specific agreement from the endless number of other real and potential agreements humans can also agree to. That's one reason I think you're trying to set me up.
A simple trade or barter is: I hand you some goods and goodies, and you hand me some goods and goodies.
Some of your goods or my goods may be "money", understanding that "money" is just an alternate name for one specific "good", usually some specific quantity of gold and/or silver, but potentially anything. What cannot be real money is... something that people do not value in and of itself. The best example is "fiat currency", which has no useful purpose except perhaps a tiny aid in the process of starting a large fire.
The AGREEMENT is the statement of which goods and goodies I will give to you in exchange for which goods and goodies you will give to me.
The TRADE is when we give the agreed-upon goods and goodies to each other.
Maybe you're asking whether our agreement can include me giving you [some of] my goods and goodies at a DIFFERENT TIME than you giving me [some of] your goods and goodies. Of course an agreement can state that. In which case, our TRADE takes more time than a few seconds or minutes (which is the conventional time required to execute most trades).
(((almost makes me wonder whether you're asking about HFT or something))).
Our agreement can include anything we can agree upon... except obligating, involving or harming others who are unaware-of (or do not agree-with) our agreement.
Note that no other devices are required. The AGREEMENT and the TRADE. The AGREEMENT describes the nature of the trade, and the TRADE is the action... the bidirectional exchange of goods and/or goodies.
And so, both agreements and trade are inherently capable of operating over extended time and space. No other real or fictional devices are necessary (if that's what you're getting at).
Perhaps I should point out one additional fact. A trade cannot exist without an agreement. As such, one could claim "agreement" is simply "a part" of trade. The only reason we generally don't say it that way is because "agreement" can apply to all sorts of situations and interactions, some of which do not involve any exchange of goods or goodies or anything else. As such, "agreement" is approximately equally fundamental to human interaction as "trade".
But... trade cannot exist without agreement, while agreement can exist without trade (at least in the normal sense of "trade", in which real, physical goods or goodies (or services) are exchanged). An agreement is arbitrarily general, however. I agree to NOT shoot you, if you agree to NOT shoot me. No action is involved, in fact the whole point is to assure non-action. And no goods, goodies or services are involved.
And so, with "agreement" and "trade", all variations humans can agree upon are possible. And therefore, no additional mechanisms are required. As such, it is DANGEROUS to attempt to create additional mechanisms, because most of them will be bogus fictions that aid deceit and manipulation, or shift some of the terms of the agreement to "elsewhere". THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS.
Why? Because the agreement and trade I discussed involves TWO and ONLY TWO individuals. Furthermore, ALL the terms of their agreement and trade were clear (in one document that THEY created) and easily identified and considered by both parties. The moment ANY terms, definitions, assumptions or anything else are "shifted to elsewhere", an unknown number of additional individuals are involved. The meanings of at least some terms will be different than those in the two-party agreement. Almost certainly many terms and grammar and formulation will be crafty, diabolical and explicitly designed to let one of the two main parties, or some unknown number of external parties (predators calling themselves various fictional "law", fictional "attorneys", fictional "governments", etc).
Almost always this leads to...
DISASTER
DISPUTES
PREDATORS STEALING VALUE
... and endless other trouble.
-----
The bottom line is, I have no idea what you're trying to maneuver me into supporting, but most likely I do not approve. That doesn't mean traders can't craft unusual agreements. They can. But I object to anything being put into the "background", into the terms or hands or "authority" of additional parties. As soon as ANY of that process begins (adding additional terms, assumptions, language, parties, etc), DISASTER OCCURS, and ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS predators win, and producers lose.
So now you can tell me what you were trying to maneuver me into.
-----
Don't make too much out of me being sane, and my ability to recognize more conceptual scams than most people. That's not me being inherently "superior" or something, but me being expert in the nature and architecture of advanced consciousness. It is simply natural for anyone to more clearly and thoroughly understand topics they work on diligently for many years. Other humans are far more knowledgeable than me on topics they've developed expertise.
Remember, human brains and human consciousness DO NOT come with operating manuals. Which is rather sad, but true. Unfortunately, if any such operating manual is ever written, it will likely be written by some nefarious, diabolical scumbag predator working for some pack of globalist-oriented predators, and therefore be destructive. Maybe that's what some of these new federal educational schemes are all about. Who knows.
I wish there was some way for us to take this off-line, honestann. Your replies grow exponentially with each iteration. Most go in a completely wrong direction by making a wrong (either proven wrong or one which must be proven right before proceeding) assumption early on. It is easy to point out many instances within them where they are self conflicting (either because i don't understand what you're saying ... or you don't understand what you're saying).
Yes, one reason it is difficult to work out issues like these is... each conclusion must be integrated with, tested against, and made consistent with every other related idea.
This is why identifying, much less figuring out, all the appropriate elements and their dependencies and interrelationships requires years of careful and "ruthlessly" honest thought.
For most people, such a process is near impossible. Why? Because they've absorbed, accepted, integrated and habituated endless bogus, fictional concepts. And as long as they "think" or "come to conclusions" based upon ANY of those bogus concepts, their conclusions will be wildly defective and usually flat-out wrong.
Amazingly, someone who never heard those bogus concepts is in a much better position to "figure stuff out" than "highly educated people".
-----
PS: YOU may not understand what I'm saying. But I can assure you, I do know. Not that I'm incapable of mistake, but... I know how to check myself, I know how to design and implement extremely complex systems THAT WORK AS INTENDED. This gives me confidence that I actually know how to operate my consciousness in valid ways.
-----
PS: So often when I carefully answer your questions, you completely ignore my answers and pretend I never gave any answer. That's not very productive, in case you hadn't noticed.
PS: So often when I carefully answer your questions, you completely ignore my answers and pretend I never gave any answer. That's not very productive, in case you hadn't noticed.
The trouble is you go flying off on tangents. In the past, I've tried to take your geometrically increasing replies phrase by phrase to try to bring you back on topic. That just results in further geometric expansion on that reply.
Right now I'm trying to go back and see your ideas on land. You seem to have a problem with land ownership, yet you say you grow your own food. Is your garden and pasture in a park somewhere? Do you have lots of potted plants in your rented living space? Or is that in a park somewhere too?
Re your airplane. When I had mine I had to frequently fly it ... to keep me and the plane current. There's no way I could have stored enough fuel to do that. One of us is having some problems with reality here.
To discuss related ideas is the opposite of "flying off on tangents".
Yes, I remember several cases where you replied to statement after statement. That can be an effective approach. The only problem was, your replies were chock full of wrong assumptions and conclusions, thereby defeating the utility of your efforts.
Yes, go find my comments about "land stewardship" versus "land ownership", and the basis for "ownership" in the first place. To repeat, when you take actions that cause something to exist that would not otherwise exist (via natural processes of the environment), you have a fundamental and fully natural relationship to those created goods or goodies - you are their creator. This is the natural basis for "ownership". In other words, "ownership" is "causality AKA cause-and-effect applied to human action".
Since no human (or entity) created planet earth, no human can own planet earth (or any portion thereof). Simple as that.
So, I do not own the rocks, the dirt, the ground, the land. I do own the greenhouses that I constructed, and I do own the food I grew and raised in them. Why? Because I took actions that caused those goods and goodies to exist. Without my actions, they would not exist. Simple.
You seem to attempt to create some connection between "the land" and "my plants, the pots they grow in, and so forth". There is no connection except they are in close proximity.
Note that I didn't create [very much of] the CO2 in the atmosphere either (that my plants consume). So what? Same issue as the "land". I didn't create [very much of] the O2 that I breathe/consume either. So what? I did take actions that caused my food to exist, and that's the point.
I do not live in a rented home or living space.
I do not live on land that is owned (by anyone).
I do not need permission to exist on planet earth. I do not need to restrict my location to land that I supposedly "own", especially since nobody can legitimately "own" land in the first place.
I live 125km from the nearest human being. Nobody knows I'm here, nobody would give a damn that I'm here if they knew, and nobody else wants to live here, even though the environment is wonderful. That may be partly because they'd need to design, buy and install quite a bit of infrastructure to survive here (water, power, food, transportation (inaccessible by land vehicle), and so forth). And no, I do not live in a park, national forest, or other fictional "government region".
I fly my airplane fairly frequently. The fuel I stored has a better life than most fuel, partly because it contains no ethanol (but is still high-octane automobile gasoline). I have heard wildly varying estimate about how long it will last, but the best answer I can find is "many years" given the way I store it, and the environmental conditions.
Is it possible my stored fuel might damage my engine after 10 or 20 years of storage? Possibly. However, I can live through old age without ever needing to leave my digs, so even if my airplane became unusable, I would still survive just fine. In reality. But I would likely be annoyed. Note that the fuel issue is irrelevant as long as gasoline remains available, since I consume what is stored, and replace the consumed fuel with fresh, new fuel.
In short, it is not me who has problems with reality, it is most everyone else. I'm doing just fine. Can you survive and be happy for the next 40 years without ANY input from ANY other human being? If so, congrats, because then you too would be well aligned with reality, and have few substantial problems with reality.
That can be an effective approach. The only problem was, your replies were chock full of wrong assumptions and conclusions, thereby defeating the utility of your efforts.
That is exactly the issue. When the train goes of the tracks, it's not about declaring yourself right. It's about proving yourself right. It's not about declaring the other party wrong. It's about proving the other party wrong.
For me it is about explaining whatever errors or misconceptions I can identify. But these topics are based upon quite a few assumptions, so it is not always easy to identify which assumption led some other human being to wrong conclusions.
This is the natural basis for "ownership". In other words, "ownership" is "causality AKA cause-and-effect applied to human action".
Unique to "human" action? Aren't "all" animals naturally territorial? Is that not actually taking ownership without creatorship?
Since no human (or entity) created planet earth, no human can own planet earth (or any portion thereof). Simple as that.
I think you over simplify and ignore other natural tendencies that don't suit your position. You cherry pick. I suspect we agree that looking at what nature does is a good place to find first "grounding". That's why I look for solutions that don't require constant care ... that have natural self correcting tendencies.
Did you ever wonder why wheeled vehicles steer at the front and not the back? Did you ever wonder why rudder steering is from the rear (except in purposely unstable control cases like current fighter plane designs)?
Pay attention to what I say, not random irrelevant issues. To be clear, one of the irrelevant issues you keep coming back to is "territory". That concept is IRRELEVANT. ALL territory existed before any human came to exist. You do not own it, or have priority over it.
What is relevant is creation, production, causality (human action creates configurations of material via the natural process called "causality" AKA "cause-and-effect").
And so, the fact "many animals are territorial" is utterly irrelevant to this entire topic, for both "other animals" and "for human animals".
Another irrelevancy is "tendency". Just because you have "a tendency" to expect others to give you everything you want... because your mother spoiled to be-jesus out of you for your first 8 or 18 years of life, does NOT create ANY obligation upon ANYONE ELSE. To be sure, as a "life long spoiled brat", you have a super-strong tendency to expect endless goods and goodies upon demand (you "claim" them, because you want them). Well, screw you (or whoever that spoiled brat is). Their "tendency" is of ZERO relevance to me or anyone else on the planet, and for sure "tendency" is no justification for ANYTHING.
You ought to think about concepts before you imagine they are relevant or important, or propose them as somehow relevant or important.
-----
Yes, some of my ideas and statements DO sound "simple". Why? Because I invested endless hours, years and effort trying to understand what is real and what is fiction. And once I figured out what is real, I invested endless hours, years and effort to figure out what were the most fundamental aspects of reality (that explain the most about reality, precisely because they are fundamental).
When one does this, one eventually does discover [some of] the fundamentals. And when one does, one is able to see and understand that yes, in fact, what used to appear hopelessly messy IS IN FACT SIMPLE. Or at least a lot simpler than the endless intellectual chaos that invariably results when one attempts to make endless piles of inherently and unavoidably contradictory arbitrary concepts and assertions "make sense".
To be sure, an attempt to "reduce to fundamentals" CAN be taken too far (meaning beyond the point where they apply in reality). One very common and extreme case of this is to claim "god created the universe and man, and thus owns the universe and man lock, stock and barrel, and thus you are the ultimate slave, and his authority is absolute and unlimited".
Yup, that's pretty fundamental all right.
But yup, that's pure fiction too. And thus irrelevant and destructive.
If one keeps their eye on reality, and especially fundamentals (which tends to prevent us from making mistakes on less fundamental aspects of reality), one automatically lives a natural and self-correcting existence. And that self-correcting process very much applies to thinking too.
Indeed. Conventional concepts and ways of thinking are IMPOSSIBLE to reconsile or make consistent, much less self-correcting. Which is why to take my approach, which can be called: start thinking about all subjects with tabula rasa (no assumptions), keep your eyes and mind focused strictly on reality (and ignore human assertions), pay close attention to the "reality-status" of every concept you ever hear, and always be on the lookout for fundamentals. And be honest, "ruthlessly" honest, because you may not like some of what you come to understand --- but that doesn't make reality wrong, that makes YOU WRONG if you are not honest enough to accept what is, and instead adopt what is not (some line of propaganda, of which a never ending supply is anxiously offered to us by the worst human predators in the history of history).
So, I do not own the rocks, the dirt, the ground, the land. I do own the greenhouses that I constructed, and I do own the food I grew and raised in them. Why? Because I took actions that caused those goods and goodies to exist. Without my actions, they would not exist. Simple.
Again, not as simple as you suggest. Your starting position is "after" someone has already claimed and protects a territorial position. You then rent on that claim. If that claim was not secure, your greenhouses would be jeopardized. Others could come in and build greenhouses that block access to your greenhouses (without touching your greenhouses). Then what? Not so simple is it?
You are wrong. Why? I explained further above. So-called "claims" are bogus fictions. They are an attempt to "own" without investing the time, effort and action that is required to create the goods they wish to own.
To claim that "claim" has some significance is to adopt the approach of central banksters who create fiat, fake, fraud, fiction, fantasy something out of nothing by means of mere assertion.
When a human makes a "claim", they attempt to create fiat, fake, fraud, fiction, fantasy "ownership" of "property" without taking the actions required to reconfigure reality into a form that has value and utility.
BOTH want something for nothing. BOTH want something without investing the time, effort and resources REQUIRED to create something real. The banksters and "claimers" just want to waggle their mouth and/or pen, and PRETEND they are creators. THEY ARE NOT. THEY ARE LIARS. THEY ARE PREDATORS.
Note the following. If "claims" were valid, then the first human being to utter the words "I claim the earth", or "I claim the universe" thereby OWN the earth or universe. This is so absurd as to only justify LAUGHS, not serious conversation. And yet, this is PRECISELY what your approach necessarily leads and supports.
INSANE.
I hope I've made that abundantly clear.
-----
BTW, I don't own the sun, or the airspace (and neither do "they"). So if someone erects some tall structure that blocks my greenhouse, then I will move my greenhouse. Simple as that.
Unlike you, I do NOT expect to "freeze the options and actions of all mankind to prevent any inconvenience from ever befalling me". Anyone who does has delusions of importance, and delusions of grandeur, and extreme delusions of priority to exist.
You seem to attempt to create some connection between "the land" and "my plants, the pots they grow in, and so forth". There is no connection except they are in close proximity.
Yes there is. Land represents space. Your plants take up space (and may even utilize the dirt representing that space). "Real" estate is a "collection of rights" ... on the surface and above and below it. There is a direct connection between "real" estate and everything else. We have laws to clarify that connection. We have methods of recording those collections. Our recording rules take no position on the validity of the claim being recorded ... they just make it uniformly visible. Without that step, the myriad legal systems and due-diligence methods that employ that record do not function (at least not as efficiently).
The laws of the jungle work a little differently but yield the same (albeit suboptimal) result. The pig that wanders in front of the python has no audience to his pleas that the python is behaving unfairly or unlawfully. In nature it's called the food chain.
For purposes of this conversation (about "ownership" AKA "property"), the earth, which includes "ALL the land" existed before any human beings. As such, no human being "created the land"... or the air... or the water... or the rocks, dirt, etc.
And therefore, they cannot be "owned". The "configuration" of some of these can be "owned", because it is the "configuration" that humans invest time, effort, skills and resources to create. You cannot "own" the gold that is randomly dispersed by nature in the earth. However, if you change the configuration to bring all the gold atoms together (quite a difficult process), you CAN own that "chunk of purified gold".
It is not intuitive given the way humans have been misled to think about "ownership", but you DO NOT own the gold atoms themselves, you DO own the "chunk of purified gold".
Given that humans are brainwashed to imagine they "own" the "material", I understand why this is difficult to immediately "make feel right". But this IS right, because humans DO NOT create gold atoms (unless you have a particle accelerator capable of nuclear transmutation, which I doubt, in which case you do own that gold because you reconfigured the electrons, neutrons, protons to create that configuration of those sub-atomic particles).
ALL of these conversations from me about "ownership" will "sound wrong"... until you start from tabula rasa, then figure out where the justification for the term "ownership" LEGITIMATELY comes from (how "ownership" is rationally and existentially justified). If you do so, you will eventually realize what I say is correct... that the only valid, rational justification for "ownership" is "creation".
What can be more fundamental than... to make exist?
To be, or not to be. That is the most fundamental distinction possible, and in fact is the distiction that makes a fully natural concept of "ownership" possible in a universe where the fundamental "conservation principle" is the most fundamental of all principles.
Nobody... and I mean nobody... creates substance. But humans can configure and reconfigure substance into valuable, utilitarian forms. THAT we can create. And THAT is what makes us "owner".
Please don't speak to me about "laws". They are quite obviously pure fiction, so I don't care WHATSOEVER what ANY law says. Period. But do note that my basis for "ownership" has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "laws".
This is important to undestand. My basis for ownership is... what? The answer is, my statement is purely and only a statement of the NATURE OF REALITY (the conservation principle, plus causality applied to human action). PERIOD. No need (or room) for "law", no need (or room) for "authority". No need (or room) for quibble. No need (or room) for producers to debate about what "standard" their "union" should arbitrarily "settle on" for "ownership" or "property". And no need to figure out what is the appropriate level of "tax" to apply to "property".
NONE OF THAT. And why? Because "ownership" is not subject to whim. Because "ownership" is a certain relationship between goods created by humans configuring or reconfiguring the material of reality (that already exists, and no human [or other entity] created out of nothing (like some fictional central-bankster in the sky)).
Make no mistake, producers understand how they produce (reconfigure what already exists). So producers understand the basis for ownership "in their guts" (intutively), even if they haven't worked out a clear, coherent explanation like I have. So "laws" and "authority" do not apply, the nature of reality is the source of property, and producers don't need some scumbag predator to tell them the basis of ownership. They know.
I do not live in a rented home or living space.
I do not live on land that is owned (by anyone).
Really? Assuming more than one such place exists so you can tell me about it without exposing your location, give me an example (specific location ... GPS coordinates) of such a place. I want to have a look at it.
I explained in a previous message above.
I do not need permission to exist on planet earth. I do not need to restrict my location to land that I supposedly "own", especially since nobody can legitimately "own" land in the first place.
A right is a "defended" claim. Make no "claim", you have no right. Fail to "defend" your claim, you have no right. This is "exactly" how it works in nature.
I think you have already indicated disagreement with this definition. Perhaps this is a good place for you to prove the fallacy of the definition. I have never seen this definition in writing (other than my own), but I have never seen it fail in my "real" life. You mileage must vary.
Once you've adopted "your location" it can't be occupied by anyone or anything else (this is not quantum mechanics). So how do you protect your "location" from encroachment? How do you defend your claim?
No, I don't think I disagree very much. But I dislike your terminology, because it tends to imply a different basis than I claim.
In fact, if you think about it carefully, your formulation is absurd. How?
Well, everyone is perfectly free to shoot you in the face and eat you for lunch... if they can shoot you before you open your mouth and yell, "I claim my face".
That's an absurd formulation. Yes, I know you didn't intend your formulation to leave open unintended consequences like that, but it does.
One way you might try to "repair" that formulation is... to make the invalid, utterly bogus and horrific mistake of "inventing a fiction like 'government' in order to create an agreed upon place for everyone to document their claims". And then make some equally insane and arbitrary "rule" or "law" that says "nobody can do anything whatsoever until they drive into town, visit the "glee claims office", and make sure none of the 545,542,643,124,532 claims registered there rule out your action.
And then every time anyone wants to take any action, they must drive back into whatever town you located your "glee claims office" and read those trillions of pages again.
Yeah, that works. NOT.
Not only is that impractical, it has no basis in reality... MUCH LESS any place in any version of "nature" that I can imagine (unless you mean arbitrary, perverted "human nature").
However, my objection is mostly with your formulation, not the substance. At least... maybe. As far as I can tell.
Another objection. If we speak precisely, nobody has or can-have a "right". There are no "rights", only "wrongs". Everything that is not wrong is... well... not wrong. But not a "right" either.
Yes, I understand one can "speak this way" and most of us will "understand what you mean", but what you call "rights" are actually "prohibitions of wrongs". Note that the "wrong" is necessarily a real, physical, existental ACTION. A "right" is... what? A concept inside your head. Yes, the concept is real, but it is constrained to your head, and thus is not an interaction between sentient beings (which is where the problems lie).
Why are the distinctions I'm making not mere "quibbles"? Well, if we have precise enough agreement on what we "really mean" by "rights", maybe they are essentially just quibbles in practice. Until we start developing further concepts in our minds, at which point we are in danger of forgetting the huge difference between "rights" (ideas incapable of harming anyone), and "wrongs" (actions that do harm people and/or their property).
Also note, there is a huge difference between saying "I do not need permission to exist on planet earth" and "I own this piece of planet earth" (or "I claim exclusive use of this unimproved piece of planet earth... or the whole planet for that matter, which is just as legitimate in principle, and popular with kings, queens, pharoes, and other insane humans with extreme cases of delusion of grandeur disease).
You don't say it, but what you describe sounds a LOT like "might makes right".
It sounds like your statement works like the following:
#1: I claim this (whatever).
#2: I will kill you if you violate my claim.
#3: Fighting ensues, and the mightier (or luckier) prevails.
That seems rather indistinguishable from "might makes right" AKA "alpha male syndrome" to me.
-----
I've said this many times, but I'll repeat it again.
#1: predators have one approach to deal with everyone, predator and producer alike. And that is to "do whatever they want if they think they can get away with it".
#2: producers need two approaches, one for predators and another for producers. With predators, the only viable/workable approach a producer can take is (in essence) to say, "if you are behaving as a predator (adopted the predator modus-operandi), then I shall interact with you on YOUR terms, namely, kill you if you attempt to harm me or my property in any way". With other producers, the "producer ethics" that I have described many times applies, and you do NOT harm or steal them or their property in any way (until and unless they do attempt to harm or steal you or your property).
-----
And so, how do I say we deal with "claims" and "defending claims"? Well, when we are dealing with a predator, then I essentially agree with you. Whoever prevails, wins. Kill before being killed. Or at least try to kill until the predator runs away and you prevail.
With producers, "claims" are not necessary. The presumption is, if you invested the time, effort and resources to produce something, you own it (by nature of causality as applied to human action), and no other producer would presume otherwise.
On rare occasion, mistakes are possible. It is possible, for example, that you produce something that doesn't outwardly appear any (or enough) different from natural stuff (not human produced) that just lies around in the world. A producer might see this and assume he can pick it up, take it away, and further improve on what "nature produced".
If a producer leaves something like this lying around (without a sign explaining "this was produced by a human"), then he should not get angry if he wakes up some morning and finds his "outdoors ornament" vanished (was "stolen"). If the two ever find each other, they should explain themselves, have a laugh over the mistake, make any correction that seems appropriate (could go either way), and go their separate ways.
Let's say I build a cabin on top of some mountain, because I like to visit my cabin from time to time, and sleep there before I come home from a long trip. If I leave the door unlocked, and the cabin without any notice upon it, how should some random producer who happens by the cabin behave?
Very simple. Enjoy the place (if they wish), but do no harm. In fact, benevolent producers who do not live in the never-ending nightmare that is called "modern civilization" have a natural tendency to leave the place a bit nicer than they found it. Or if they encounter locked doors, or a "do not enter" sign on the door, then they do not enter. In a true [life-threatening] emergency, they would likely enter anyway to save their life (or the life of their injured friend). They would call the owner on their cell phone (if a phone number was posted) and explain their actions and reasons, and virtually 100% of the time their fellow producer would say "good luck" and that would be that. If the owner asked them to "leave $50 in the kitchen cabinet", they should do so.
But a simpler, day-to-day situation might be the home you live in. If you don't want anyone else to enter, lock the door and/or post a sign. End of story.
You own the house. You own all improvements on the land (fences, corrals, etc). You do not own the land. And so, if someone hikes across "your" land, they have not harmed you or your property. If you erect a fence around "your" land, and someone manages to "pole-vault" over the fence, then hike across your land without touching any of your improvements, and then "pole-vault" over the fence at the other end of "your" land... then again, they have not harmed you or your property. You don't have to "like it", but you do need to leave them alone. If you don't, YOU become the predator, and they may well decide to defend themselves against your aggression.
I don't know what quantum mechanics has to do with anything. It is perfectly possible (and extremely common) for dozens of humans to occupy a dwelling.
But... if you're talking about "strangers" who attempt to occupy your home without permission, then the fact "you created and therefore own" your home makes clear the "stranger" must leave or die (or be [injured then] removed, or whatever else you decide to do with the predator, which is your choice).
I do not defend my claim, or even make a claim. I simply do whatever I wish with the objects I own, and expect other producers to recognize "human created-thus-owned objects". And that might include telling someone to "get out of that object I own", or perhaps making them get out (even if that requires me shooting them and dumping them in my trash container).
And no, I do not live in a park, national forest, or other fictional "government region".
Presumably yours is not the only location on earth having those attributes. From my experience on earth, such places only exist three miles beyond land boundaries in seas. And even there it is difficult to enjoy a right to "peaceful enjoyment" ... witness China, Korea, North Korea, Tiawan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Japan squabbles ... or England, Argentina, Falklands.
But just in case such a place does exist on land, please give me the GPS coordinates of such a place. Should be simple for you to do using GOOGLE Earth or Maps.
I am careful not to reveal my location. But I have said that I moved to the southern hemisphere, so you know that much.
Incidentally, perhaps my phrase was misleading, albeit not intentionally. I did not mean to imply I live somewhere that no fictional "nation" considers "their territory". I just meant to say I don't live in a national or state or county or province or city forest, park, wilderness area or other designation.
About the only "land" that no fictional "nation" claims as its own territory these days is "antarctica". And that's only because there is a multi-nation agreement for no nation to claim antarctica as their "territory". I don't live in antarctica.
You don't need GPS coordinates from me! Anywhere you can find where no human lives for 100km to 200km is a fairly easy place to live like I do (where nobody knows, nobody cares, nobody will). Huge portions of Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Argentina and other south american countries qualify. Huge portions of northern Africa qualify. Probably places like Mongolia qualify (if you don't mind cold weather). And there are a LOT more completely unpopulated islands in the south-pacific than most people would imagine. Most are faily small, but there's an extremely spiffy south-pacific island with some radically gorgeous geology that's roughly 7km by 11km in diameter with altitudes up to 4000 feet or more (from memory).
I've probably landed on 20 such south-pacific islands, and almost landed on another 40 but wasn't quite confident enough about the landing site to take the risk I might get stuck or foul my landing gear (sand softer than it looks or otherwise). Personally I love isolated islands. However, about half of those I've landed on are inpractical for someone who loves to wander around outdoors like me, because they have too many annoying flying insects. But it is funny. Sometimes an island only 10km or 20km away from "isla insect nightmare" is almost devoid of insects. How this happens, I don't understand. But there you go. PS: I always stay on these islands for at least 24 hours to assure I am not faked out by day-night variations. Of course, I cannot be sure about seasonal variations, but most of the islands I visited are between -5 and -25 degrees latitude, so the temperature does not change very much with the seasons.
If you do want to move to such a place, and you supply me with an exhaustive as possible list of likes, dislikes and preferrences, I might be able to point you to a few general areas to investigate, or possibly even a specific island or two, understanding that I've only visited a tiny, tiny fraction of those in the south-pacific. I would have done a much more thorough job if I had a luxury yacht to explore with!
I fly my airplane fairly frequently. The fuel I stored has a better life than most fuel, partly because it contains no ethanol (but is still high-octane automobile gasoline). I have heard wildly varying estimate about how long it will last, but the best answer I can find is "many years" given the way I store it, and the environmental conditions.
Ignoring the obvious difficulty of maintaining the integrity of the fuel over long periods of time without refinement, you still have to store it.
I have 1,000+ flying hours ... all on fuel I bought. I never stored more than 50 gallons of fuel. My plane had an STC allowing use of mogas. I could buy it for 1/2 the cost of avgas. In the spring and the fall, refiners have to change the vapor pressure of their blend. It only took one instance of them changing too late (my plane got to 1500 feet and the engine quit) and I decided it wasn't worth the 50% savings and the hassle.
That not-withstanding. How many hours of flying do you store? Assuming a pretty small number, how is than in any way useful?
Well, in this case, I am not very confident my choice was wise. I spent a fair amount of gold to buy these special storage tanks, get them dropped at my place, and get them filled up. The ONLY cases in which my storage is worth what I spent is: the SHTF in an extreme enough way that fuel becomes unavailable or too expensive... or... fuel prices go through the roof for some reason (fairly laughable notion at the immediate moment).
Probably the main reason I was motivated to take this (probably unwise) risk is because I am so utterly independent and self-sufficient in every other way. I have my digs, I grow my own food, I have my own pristine water source, I am literally able to survive alone on planet earth for the rest of my life.
I even looked into finding someone who could convert my rotax 912iS engine to run on hydrogen and oxygen (which I can produce with water plus electricity from my solar panels). That would have been my favorite solution (or some even better fuel that I could make, but am not aware of yet). But such a conversion is too problematic, and would require much too much time, effort and expense (mostly for testing (not by me), not implementation (also not by me)).
I've done a lot of flying the past 3 years. I've flown 2 full round trips across the south pacific ocean (in hops no longer than 4000km, of course), stopped at dozens of islands in the south pacific, landed in most countries in south-america, plus NZ, AU and all sorts of strange places near Indonesia. I've now landed in 18 fictional "nations" (without permission, passport, notice or visa), not including a great many small islands (many in various island groups).
Of course, that was because it was new and exciting and lots of fun. But now I've "been there, done that", so I'm sure my flying will be cut back a lot from now on. Fortunately for me, the general area within a few hundred kilometers of me includes a great many very interesting places to explore. So I can take much shorter, safer, less "scary" trips when I get the itch to explore the land (as opposed to outer space).
In round numbers, my airplane consumes roughly 2 gallons per hour (at about 150 miles per hour). To achieve such good efficiency I fly slower than "top speed" (300kph), slower than nominal "cruise speed" (285kph)... about 240kph to 250kph is "economy speed" (depending on altitude, relative winds, etc). Thus I have about 1000 hours of stored fuel, or about 150,000 miles). I probably spent more than I should have to set myself up this way. My guess is, I should have purchased only half as many storage tanks, maybe even a quarter as many. Well, too late now. Chalk it up to non-optimal judgement. OTOH, I purchased most (but not all) of the fuel at a low price, so factor that in. Who knows.
Where I live the weather is always mild and pleasant. For practical purposes, I encounter almost "no seasons", and no major changes in humidity or otherwise. So tweaks in fuel are not an issue for me. When I fly far away, I refuel during my trip, and presumably any seasonal tweaks have been done for the locations I visit.
In all my flying so far, which has mostly been within a 15,000km east-west by 5,000km north-south rectangle (sort-of), I have not noticed any difficulty starting my engine, or odd behavior during flight. Maybe that's because the 912iS is a new (and thus computer-controlled) fuel-injected engine. Or maybe because my airplane and engine are still fairly new. I hope they both continue to perform as well for decades. We shall see.
Is it possible my stored fuel might damage my engine after 10 or 20 years of storage? Possibly. However, I can live through old age without ever needing to leave my digs, so even if my airplane became unusable, I would still survive just fine.
Why even mention it. You know you have to fly your plane frequently just for maintenance. The Air Force used to require that the entire inventory fly at least 30 minutes every 20 days. They constantly canibalized planes with each other to meet that requirement. It wasn't a "make work" issue. It came from knowing "readyness" has a pretty short shelf life.
When it comes to survival, a mountain bike can be an unnecessary luxury. A plane is flat out ridiculous.
You know what? I agree. My plane is a luxury. Are you saying I am evil because I enjoy a few items (or aspects of my environment) that are not necessary? Go ahead and do so if you wish. I don't care.
However, my airplane may not be as much a luxury as you imagine. Though it is very high-tech (GPS, 3-axis autopilot, carbon fiber construction, full electronic glass cockpit, etc), it only costs about as much as 2 or 3 luxury cars (as in Mercedes, not Ferrari).
Since I now have no land vehicles, that offsets part of the price. Since I get 75mpg, my lowered fuel consumption over the next 20 years offsets even more of the price. Since I pay no insurance on the airplane, that offsets even more of the price (especially over 20 years).
If you add up all the numbers, I figure my airplane is about as much a luxury has owning a nice newish Honda for the next 20 or 30 years. That doesn't seem so lavish or unreasonable to me.
Also, the fact that my digs cannot be reached by land vehicle makes my choice of transportation a bit more sensible, don't you think? Of course, you could look at this issue in reverse. It is the fact that I choose an airplane as transportation that made this gorgeous, mind-blowing, extraordinary and extremely secure location practical.
I often let my airplane sit idle for 60 days, and rarely but sometimes up to 90 days. I've never had any difficulty at all starting the airplane, and I've never noticed any negative consequences. Maybe I'm missing something... and I'll regret my 60~90 day policy. If so, that's my mistake, and I'll bear the consequences, whatever they may be.
Note that the fuel issue is irrelevant as long as gasoline remains available, since I consume what is stored, and replace the consumed fuel with fresh, new fuel.
Did it ever occur to you that there are a huge number of "property rights" (defended claims) that go into making gasoline available?
Yes. And I'm sure fuel is not the only item in conventional life. For me personally though, fuel could become my only problematic "good" in that sense, since everything else I consume is something I produce, or something I don't need. Of course, I don't need fuel either, though I do enjoy exploring the world from above (unless I can leave this world).
Note that fuel can be owned, even though the land that sits above the supplies cannot. I explained why in a different reply in the past 24 hours.
In short, it is not me who has problems with reality, it is most everyone else. I'm doing just fine. Can you survive and be happy for the next 40 years without ANY input from ANY other human being? If so, congrats, because then you too would be well aligned with reality, and have few substantial problems with reality.
Not that it's relevant, but I am now in my 10th year of living "off the grid". No public utility power has ever existed on my property. No public water supply has ever existed on my property.
What is humorous is why.
It's because I respected my neighbor's property rights. When I went to get power from the utility company they said I needed to get permission from my neighbor (over whose property the wire must pass). He refused (and he had a right to ... even though he got his power from wires passing over other's land). My alternative (short of a condemnation procedure the power company had to go through) was to get permission from another neighbor; to gain from him about a 1 acre easement; to clear that acre of trees; and to put up 4 poles. The cost would exceed $20,000 just for the poles. Failing that, I would have had to "exhaust all" alternatives before condemnation could be imposed to gain me a right to "public power".
I made a game out of it ... and it's been enjoyable. But that is "reality" little girl ... up front and personal.
No, I cannot survive without human interaction. I go to the grocery monthly though I have no refrigeration. My internet connection comes via smart phone. My interpersonal interactions are at honky tonks. Works for me.
I'd tell you to go to chat, but I like her POV.
Simple barter is simple. So simple that I have to assume your question is a trick question in some way. Simple barter is this. You want something. You find someone who has what you want. You offer to exchange something you have for what they have. If they don't need what you have, you either go look for someone else who has what you want, or you ask what they want, then go find someone who has that to exchange with you.
As a "techie", how in the world can you consider such a ridiculously inefficient system? This is precisely why money was invented ... to avoid such ridiculous complications. It is truly an elegant solution to the problem you illustrate.
All we need to do now is to keep the creation of money in line with what it really is ... as evidenced by what you say above. Money is "obviously" a promise to complete a trade.
Once lots of people accept gold in exchange for the goods they'd like to trade, life becomes much easier for everyone, because that search process is eliminated.
The trouble is, the collective people's propensity to trade varies widely over time and space. The supply of gold does not. Thus, the "value" of gold must vary as widely as the trade. This is not a good characteristic. You want the value of money to remain constant!
As a techie, you should appreciate having proper linkages in automatic negative feedback systems. You should be particularly aware of the chaos deadbands can inject. If that is too abstract a leap for you, a person needing and wanting to trade, and not being able to put his hands on gold to do so, is experiencing a "deadband". His wheels are spinning.
Yet, trading real money for goods is still more efficient than adopting fiat money,
This statement is easy to refute just looking at what you write leading up to it. We know the inefficienies of our dollar. It is the money I have used for all but an infinitesimalnumber of trades throughout my entire life. I presume you would consider that fiat and not money. Fine.
In my lifetime, the inefficiency of this "fiat" money is documented to be 4% (inflation) when compared to what you consider to be "real" money ... i.e. gold.
Now, take that 4% and go back and look at how you want to trade using simple barter requirements ... what you have is what I want and vice versa. Do you really really think you can make that match without a huge amount of additional effort over the 4% leak we have in our dollars ... that leak caused by our government that never delivers on its trading promises?
Do you really think you have any chance of knowing what gold is worth when everyone is trying to get their hands on it so they can trade more efficiently using that which you define as "real" money?
But... as my experiences and experiment proved, we can still trade real money (and/or goods) for other real money (and/or goods) in the world today. It works fine. And in many ways, it makes like much more efficient, much more secure, much more private, much more satisfying, and much more stress-free).
"experiment proved"???
The bottom line is, I have no idea what you're trying to maneuver me into supporting, but most likely I do not approve.
How about trading a portion of your future 30 years labor for a house being offered by a person who doesn't need it and who isn't going to live 30 more years. You would both benefit if that trade could somehow be made. Yet your rules or fear seem to preclude it.
Maybe that's what some of these new federal educational schemes are all about. Who knows.
Well, your thinking on land ownership wasn't in that enormous reply. Just wanted to let you know I'm still looking. I "will" find it.
It's not just her, it's me too! How odd, two people who share much of the same ideas and understanding. It was extremely easy to disprove this point of yours.
I think it is not at all hard for me and her and many others to live on the same planet and even be able to interact and cooperate in plenty of ways without falling for the misconception that any centralized arrangements or predatory behavior is necessary. Even if there were others interspersed among us with such misconceptions, we would be able to technically coexist, but likely at war, unless a centralized entity that those other people participate in gains the same understanding collectively and does not behave predatorially towards us, but limits its predatory behavior towards its participants only (very unlikely).
In fact we already live in such a world where, since my only known interaction with honestann has been through ZH discussions, we have had only peaceful and (at least for me) beneficial interaction. And we haven't been assimilated or defeated by other either.
It's not just her, it's me too! How odd, two people who share much of the same ideas and understanding.
So now we have "two" sane humans (in this very small sample of ZH'ers). Notwithstanding that that is several sigmas outside honestann's .00000001%, please let me take advantage of this most improbable opportunity.
There needs to be a method of extending simple barter over time and space. The classical method is creation of a Medium of Exchange (MOE). All MOEs ever created have required management. All have been mis-managed and yield sub-optimal (with privilege grants to elites) results.
Please give us the benefit of your superior wisdom and insight.
How can we "extend simple barter over time and space" and avoid the sub-optimal results obtained by all previous attempts?
How can we "extend simple barter over time and space" and avoid the sub-optimal results obtained by all previous attempts? With Glee: I'll take an attempt, even though you might not be addressing me:
Create you own mutual credit system, but control the volume so there are no bidding up of prices, especially of land. You can have some revolving credit and have a mix of floating money. In all cases, time preference will want to ask more of your MOE than it can deliver. Time preference will ask for the MOE to grow, and that is an impossiblity. MOE is sterile. MOE does not reproduce.
Have your population of .0001% exit the MOE and buy assets, and said assets will then grow with nature, and at natures natural curve (not an exponential).
Note, that it always devolves back to some sort of control system. But, at least you are in charge.
Money does not exist by nature. Don't shoot the messenger. I don't like that Gravity makes me fall down and bump my head. I also don't like some of the truths about hamanity, that we are all basically pride defectives. That trust is hard to come by because of sneaky rent seekers who want to harvest my life energy.
Gold bugs want their guns and to be left alone. But unfortunately, we humans need to trade with each other in order to better survive. Money allows division of labor We need honest money to have trusting relations.
Have you read anything I've written before? Can we take this off-line to catch up if not? What I have written before has answered all your points. Thus, as it does solve all the problems I see presented here. It must be proven wrong, sub-optimal, or impossible to implement before looking further (if we're to avoid a giant leap backwards). In about 4 years of my writing it, that has never been done.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
Who are you? Jenet Yellen?
You say...
All MOEs ever created have required management.
FALSE. FALSE. FALSE.
FALSE. FALSE. FALSE.
FALSE. FALSE. FALSE.
And the ONLY thing predators need to enslave mankind is... for mankind to accept your claim.
PERIOD.
Once ANYONE has the power and/or fictional "authority" to "manage" the "medium of exchange"...
ALL HUMANS ARE SLAVES.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
This is necessarily and unavoidably so. This cannot be avoided. And so it seems, you love this argument because you don't want to come out and say YOU ADVOCATE GLOBAL AUTHORITARIAN DICTATORSHIP. But that's the actual fact, which I suspect you know, but don't want to admit out loud because that might be a bit more difficult to sell.
I do not exaggerate.
IT IS YOU who claim to have SUPERIOR WISDOM AND INSIGHT.
IT IS YOU who claim "me and Joe" cannot be trusted to trade without you or some other fictional "authority" involved to "manage" our trade.
IT IS YOU who want to create elites, for IT IS YOU who claim we NEED ELITES TO MANAGE mediums of exchange.
##### YOU LIE #####
If I want to trade Joe a silver coin for a bucket of nails, neither Joe nor I needs some "elite" or "authority" to "manage my silver coin" and "manage his nails". To claim such is blatantly absurd. Talk about insane!
You talk about "sub-optimal results". Guess what? No universe exists in which every action is optimal, especially not "optimal for everyone in the universe" (which is where elites are likely to go next with this line of thought).
You know what? I DON'T WANT OPTIMAL. You know why? Because I don't waste my time wanting the impossible. Furthermore, I know as clear as a deep blue sky that what YOU consider "optimal" is what I consider DISASTER.
If Joe and I are happy exchanging our coin and nails, you have no business being involved. NOBODY ELSE has any business being involved. Get your and "their" freaking nose OUT OF OUR LIVES.
Trade and barter can be extended over any space and any time WITHOUT any of your so-called "managers". Screw your managers. Anyone who attempts to manage my life, and my actions (including my trades) is trying to enslave me. And as such, they deserve a bullet through the brain. PRONTO.
You are an extreme authoritarian. Just admit it and move on.
You think I exaggerate? Not at all. Anyone who claims they need to interfere with a simple interaction between two individuals as "trading a silver coin for a bucket of nails" is a blatant predator and an extreme authoritarian. Once you get started, you will never quit. EVERYTHING will need to be managed by someone else, and NOBODY will be allowed to live their own life.
All MOEs ever created have required management: FALSE FALSE FALSE....
Oh really honestann? Name one. Describe how it has existed without management.
To give you a framework, take gold as an instance: To be used it has had to be refined, graded and stamped into coins. Is that not management?
Then take Bitcoin as another instance: Leaving aside all its other fallacies, it is "created" under management. It just so happens that creation is open to everyone and no "manager" manages it. No manager manages the governor on your lawnmower either, but it is clearly managed in the design of the engine.
By management you mean the absence of lawlessness, right. The law of Contracts is all the "management " required.
People are bound to keep their freely given word.
To be more precise, just say "agreement" or "voluntary agreement". There is no need for the concept "law", and in fact that screws up the whole process by introducing a bunch of arbitrary fictions AND other people (who "wrote" and "interpret" and "enforce" the so-called laws involved).
Your last sentence says it more accurately.
farmerbraun: People are bound to keep their freely given word.
honestann: Your last sentence says it more accurately.
In the olden days, "my word is my bond" was frequently heard ... and was the general principle of practice. Back then there were fewer lawyers to point out the ambiguity of that statement.
But honestann, in all our discussions regarding money being "a promise to complete a trade", you have made it quite clear that "my word is my bond" is a principle grounded in fantasy. I sense an inconsistency here.
What you actually sense (correctly) is that a promise is not the same as reality. Or to put it more precisely and humorously, "a hamburger today" (now, as I shove it into my mouth) is not the same as "a hamburger next tuesday" (maybe, if I'm lucky).
Also, when I said "more accurately" I meant "more accurately", not "exactly" or "precisely". So I was, as I stated, making a relative comparison of the two formulations he gave, not completely endorsing the later (which I don't).
Seriously? My message described one... exchanging gold coins for a bucket of nails.
And BTW... "production" and "management" are NOT the same thing. Also important is to distinguish any so-called "management" that is entirely performed by the individuals who trade with each other (not very problematic), versus "management" that has ANY connection to other individuals.
Note: an individual could pick up a gold nugget off the ground, and trade that for berries another individual picked off a wild (not cultivated) tree or bush (or fish caught from a lake, river, stream, ocean).
Now I suppose you'll say "the geological processes that formed the gold nugget" constitute "management"!
Sadly, many people hold their concepts in very vague, fuzzy forms, and thus accept these kinds of nonsensical notions.
As for bitcoin, one of the major drawbacks to bitcoin is the fact that bitcoin "involves management", even though it is a rather strange case of management. This is one of the reasons I'm not enthusiastic about bitcoin. But even more important, bitcoin has ZERO intrinsic value (a bitcoin cannot be converted back into the electricity require to produce the bitcoin).
And BTW... "production" and "management" are NOT the same thing. Also important is to distinguish any so-called "management" that is entirely performed by the individuals who trade with each other (not very problematic), versus "management" that has ANY connection to other individuals.
Are you serving up a strawman?
Regarding management: Your plane's engine is "managed". Do you have a problem with that? Management of your plane's engine does not ultimately rest with you. Do you have a problem with that? Management of your plane's engine has no input from other humans. Do you have a problem with that?
The goal in management is to eliminate subjectivity where ever possible ... meaning of course being aware of the problem of subjectivity in the first place.
Note: an individual could pick up a gold nugget off the ground, and trade that for berries another individual picked off a wild (not cultivated) tree or bush (or fish caught from a lake, river, stream, ocean).
Now I suppose you'll say "the geological processes that formed the gold nugget" constitute "management"!
See the problem with subjectivity? You suppose wrong.
What I will say is, if I was the individual, I would not make that trade under your rules. I want the berries but I don't "ultimately" want the gold. So that's not a workable trade by your description. The only reason I would take the gold would be because I know someone else will take the gold in exchange for what I want (the main instance), or because I want to store it (the minor instance ... totally absent because of inefficiences except in the face of imminent and rapid total collapse of the money system).
Today I have that choice and I make it continuously and frequently. I take paper instead of gold because i can more efficiently get what I want using the paper than I can using the gold. What gold I do take I store because over long timespans, the paper has proven itself corruptable. Even over relatively short timespans the gold is corruptable. Gold I took in August 2011 trades for 50% less stuff today than it did then. If I'd stored it since 1913 it would trade for 25 times as much stuff (4% compounded annually). The 4% is a nit and if that was the only leak I would not bother storing gold. But now we are on the brink of complete collapse. We could go to 100% loss over a weekend. We did in 2008 but the government gave us a head fake. We did on 9/11 but the entire populace took the government's head fake. We are riding a zombie.
If conditions change, I will change. And conditions are continually changing. My exchanges now most often use information transfer rather than gold (never) and paper (very seldom). Works splendedly. But could work even more splendedly without government and bank loading of the process.
We can get there.
You being a techie: Do you know of any process where such money (in this case information) can be created (by me in this case as I'm making the trading promise) and be guaranteed to be authentic (created by me and returned by me on completion of my trade) and uncorruptable (not counterfeitable and not creatable without a promise to delivery).
If a bitcoin like process exists to accomplish it, I haven't seen it. Bitcoin is obviously not the process I'm looking for because it views money as something rare (by its form of creation) ... rather that what it really is ... "a promise to complete a trade".
As you'll see from the answer directly above this one, it may be possible that someday someone will invent a better "money" than gold. If you can actually create what you mention in that previous message ("bitcoin electricity"), that would be great, because electricity is even more universal an intrinsic value than gold (in the modern world).
I believe not everything about bitcoin is secure and reliable, but it was a pretty good first attempt. Perhaps someday someone will think up something with all the characteristics required to satisfy both me and you. If that happens, it will probably also satisfy a great many people.
And "no", I have never figured out a mechanism that is able to satisfy all the requirements you wish. That would be nice, but likely won't happen, and may be inherently impossible. But I'm not certain, so keep trying (everyone).
-----
BTW, consider this mind experiment.
#1: Assume you live in a world in which only gold coins are traded for goods (by convention). How likely do you imagine that you'd be able to convince someone to take a nice crisp $100 federal reserve note (they never seen or heard of "paper money" or anything similar) in exchange for their goods or goodies?
#2: Assume you live in a world in which only fiat paper money is traded for goods (by convention (or "law")). How likely to you imagine that you'd be able to convince someone to take some nice shiny gold coins (or a beautiful gold necklace) in exchange for their goods or goodies?
I think you will agree, #2 is much more likely than #1. In fact, unless we're talking about some trivial value (like 25 cents), anybody in their right mind would laugh in your face at the moron who tried to "trade" a stupid piece of paper for real goods.
On the other hand, virtually EVERYONE would accept those shiny gold coins or beautiful gold necklace for... say... a nice $100 meal in a fancy restaurant. Why? Because they KNOW the gold coins or necklace have WAY MORE value than the $100 meal they gave you.
Exactly where people would draw the line varies by individual. But the point remains. People have good reason to trade real goods and goodies for other real goods and goodies, but NO good reason to trade for pieces of paper that have no value, but claim to have some fiat, fake, fraud, fiction, fantasy value. Only a sucker or fool with a lifetime of brainwashing would believe that paper has real value.
But even more important, bitcoin has ZERO intrinsic value (a bitcoin cannot be converted back into the electricity require to produce the bitcoin).
So if bitcoin were a battery or a supercap, that would work for you?
ABSOLUTELY. At least... I can't think of any reason not off the top of my head.
In fact, then it might well be a much better "money" than gold to adopt as the conventional standard. Why? Because "electricity" has even more universal utility. So, as long as the form of bitcoin you create has the other characteristics required for good "money", it might be fantastic.
For example, bitcoin would need to:
- hold its charge for a long, long time (be durable).
- be durable and not easily destroyed (probably).
- be divisible (it is as I understand it)
- hold large value in small volume (it can)
So... unless I'm missing something important, that would be pretty freaking sweet.
Thanks! Wow, how amazing to observe such completely insane and absurd ideas many humans have. I've got to assume some of their most fundamental assumptions are wrong. And being most fundamental, those errors cause them to draw so many amazingly, unbelievably blatant and wacko false conclusions!
She and many others seem to believe that everyone would need to be sane and rational to have any chance to "coexist", much less "coexist peacefully", much less "coexist effectively".
THAT IS SO OPPOSITE OF TRUE.
Imagine a world in which some large percentage of humans are insane. But more than that. Imagine they are insane in a huge, diverse, arbitrary number of ways. Every crazy idea you've every heard. Every crazy way of living you've every heard. Every crazy religion you've ever heard of. A whole world full of completely crazy human chimps, each with hundreds of wildly, radically, extremely wacko ideas and beliefs.
Yes, everyone on earth thinks "everyone else is crazy, insane, off-their-rockers-wacko"! EVERYONE. Everyone on the entire planet believes this.
... BUT ...
Everyone (or at least a great many) agree about one thing, namely the policy called "live and let live" or "voluntary interaction".
Now, if everyone is so crazy, why on earth would they agree on this one idea or policy?
Well, think about it. No matter what brand of wild, crazy, wacko, insane human you are, you can work out the two alternatives:
#1: Every other human being tries to destroy me, or force me to adopt his insane ideas and behaviors.
#2: Everyone laughs at how crazy everyone else is, but nobody tries to harm or enslave each other.
Ultimately, these ARE the choices.
Now, I'll toss in one more perspective, the perspective of that exceedingly rare creature called a "sane human being". What does he or she prefer?
He wants #2. What he doesn't want, even if he/she is the most brilliant human being ever born, is everyone in the world to conform with his/her/any set of ideas and behaviors.
??? REALLY ???
Of course! First of all, no individual do be expert in everything. Other humans need to advance the ideas, expertise and knowledge they focus upon, so we can benefit from their lives and work. Second, far and away the most efficient way to live, and the most efficient way to advance, is for huge numbers of human beings to conceive-of, consider, develop and implement) a massive variety of ideas, theories, behaviors, approaches and technologies.
Then everyone can look at this huge, diverse set of attempts, see which of them produced the best results (as far as each individual is concerned), and be free to adopt those ideas and approaches that produced the results each of us wants in our own lives.
Nobody is a threat to anyone (because they accept "live and let live" rather than "force my neighbors"). But everyone benefits from everyone. Even those crazy ideas and actions that do NOT produce results that we might wish to adopt, by observation we can see the specific consequences of those ideas and behaviors that flow from those ideas and actions that we wish to avoid.
EVERYONE can look at EVERY experiment, and select the collection of ideas and actions that they wish to be their life and their environment.
I may be a genius in a few aspects of reality and life, but I am completely ignorant and incompetent at thousands of others. And thus, I can benefit from endless human beings who may be vastly less intellectually spiffy than me (in certain ways that are important to me), but who are nonetheless vastly more expert than me in this aspect of reality or life than I am. To exaggerate the case, there are absolute morons out there who can write or play music that gives us a kind of joy that we could never produce or reproduce. In fact, one might make the argument that the natural and glorious state of free human beings is to be one gigantic collection of idiot-savants. I tend to believe that is correct to a significant degree.
-----
BUT... I get the strong feeling that most people who hate us individualists, us liberty lovers, imagine we would impose something on THEM if our "system" was implemented. But as I explain above, that is OPPOSITE of the truth. EVERYONE would be free to try any system they like. They can form as many kinds of VOLUNTARY groups to live various forms of collectivist relationships if they wish. The only thing they can't do is to force others to join, or force participants to stay.
-----
One problem is, even us individualists get drawn into arguments that presume their fundamentally authoritarian mindset. We talk about how "gold is superior money for trade". What they don't understand is, we don't want to force anyone to adopt gold for trade, or prohibit anyone from adopting fiat-debt-notes or tea-leaves or anything else for trade. We are simply saying "gold works better for these reasons", but they imagine we are saying "we want to force everyone to adopt gold". You see, they do that because they ASSUME that one approach must be MANDATED and ENFORCED upon all. And we're not careful enough to preface every single comment with "everyone is free to choose whatever they wish, but my opinion is xyz works better because abc".
-----
The problem is, you and I have a mindset and assumption that neither of us would even imagine, much less sanction, much less propose, much less support, much less finance, much less implement, much less practice ANY scheme in which we force each other to adopt any idea or practice either of us discusses.
The very notion that exchanging ideas is a threat is... well... just about inconceivable!
UNTIL... we run into people (namely almost all other people), who ABSOLUTELY presume... AND SAY... that we must be forced to adopt THEIR ideas and THEIR actions and THEIR practices and THEIR behavior and THEIR system.
THEY are our MORTAL ENEMY.
Anyone who is a true anarchist or individualist is a benefit to us, and is NO THREAT. Just the opposite, they are A BENEFIT to us, even if they have no such intention, and even if they don't know we exist.
Sadly, those who have been so utterly and completely brainwashed into authoritarian premises can't even imagine a world in which their neighbors are not threats. As far as they are concerned, the very nature of existence (which they imagine is "society" and "government") is such that every idea and desire in every human being on earth is a THREAT to them, because it might someday be implemented and make them have to adopt some idea or action or behavior that they personally dislike or hate. And so, their solution is to force the ideas and actions and behaviors that they personally like upon everyone else, no matter how much those people hate that.
-----
This whole "misunderstanding" is completely hilarious and ironic in the extreme... except for the fact that it has destroyed mankind (minor detail, not). When I say "ironic", I refer to the fact that those who are the "authoritiarian" side of the divide are precisely the people who claim to "care about their fellow man", while those of us on the "individualist" side of the divide are "don't care about their fellow man".
But the facts are exactly opposite, as I pointed out. Those who claim to "care about their fellow man" want to force ALL of them to be SLAVES. And those of us who "care about ourselves" want to leave them all free to find the ideas and actions that make their lives the most enjoyable. And further, we APPRECIATE the wide variety and diversity of ideas, actions and approaches, because we consider them experiments that we MAY want to adopt someday (once we see and understand the consequences of those ideas and actions).
I suspect most authoritarians (which now constitutes about 99.999% of the population) don't even recognize this divide, or the distinction, or the ramifictaions, or even the fact that we don't want to force them to live lives of "rugged individualism" in some technology-free forest or swamp somewhere. They're too thoroughly brainwashed to recognize these distictions. And so they want to kill us, or at least lock us in cages in jail or FEMA camps, or GITMO. And we're the "bad guys". Why? Because we want to leave them free to enjoy their lives in whatever way they wish. Yeah, and so we're the "terrorists". Right? Sheesh.
-----
One thing I didn't address above is the fundamental nature of man, namely "predator" versus "producer". But this idea, and understanding this is in fact the most fundamental distinction within the topic of "mankind", is why the world today sucks, and why the predators always win. Humans don't understand how utterly fundamental this distinction is. If they did, they'd see the "tax collector" and "everyone in government" in precisely the same way as a wild animal coming after them with intent to eat them alive. They would understand that human predators are JUST ANIMALS, like any other wild animals, and deserve no special kind of consideration like "arrest, trial and so-forth". Those practices are only appropriate (or sensible or rational or applicable) to those creatures who attempt to be honest, ethical, productive, benevolent beings.
And because humans attempt to treat the most dangerous species of wild animals as if they are mild, meek, honest, ethical, productive, benevolent beings... those viscious predators dominate. You cannot reason with a human predator any more than you can reason with any other wild animal. Namely, you cannot. As a predator, their modus-operandi is "get away with anything you want if you think you can". They will do, say and pretend anything to get away with whatever they wish, without scruples and without limits. As any insightful human being can see given time to reflect and understand, any time a producer and predator attempt to "reason with each other" or "negotiate", it is ALWAYS the predator who wins. Since human producers are almost 100% unwilling to treat predators AS predators (the way another predator would defend itself against another predator), human producers have no chance.
Which is why honest, ethical, productive, benevolent human beings need to wake up, identify and understand how fundamental this distinction is, and how to respond. And the answer is, zero tolerance for predators of all species. If they stay away and don't bother you, let them wander the wild and live in accordance with their nature. If they come after you... exterminate them, for otherwise they will exterminate you... either quickly, or by bleeding you to death over hours, days, months, years or decades (as is currently popular for human predators).
-----
We know we're no threat to each other.
They know everyone is a threat to them... due to their behavior.
Thanks! Wow, how amazing to observe such completely insane and absurd ideas many humans have.
Me thinks honestann is the pot calling the kettle black.
We shall see. Judge for yourself, as always. I certainly will.
I think that by now you will probably have apprehended that 'withglee" is a predator.
Indeed. And a good example of what I often say, namely "you can't reason or negotiate with predators, because their entire modus-operandi is to get away with whatever they want if they think they can".
I wouldn't even answer her posts except other people might benefit from seeing examples of how some humans can reason, and others purposely refuse to reason and purposely attempt to confuse.
honestann: I wouldn't even answer her posts except other people might benefit from seeing examples of how some humans can reason, and others purposely refuse to reason and purposely attempt to confuse.
We can be pretty sure at this point that nobody is listening. It's just us girls.
Perhaps. But I believe they get archived, and google searches should (I assume) find these conversations for years.
Or maybe I'm wrong about that.
Then everyone can look at this huge, diverse set of attempts, see which of them produced the best results (as far as each individual is concerned), and be free to adopt those ideas and approaches that produced the results each of us wants in our own lives.
To test your ideas take two cases:
1) Proof of real property ownership.
Previous solution: Abstract document containing certified change of ownership for all time
Current solution: Title insurance
2) Visibility of documents
Previous solution: Maintain copies of documents in county clerk's office. Maintain indexes to find documents by various search criteria.
Current solution: Same as original solution.
honestann. There are somethings that require a collective solution. There are many many things that do not.
I explained above why "land ownership" is inherently invalid and corrupt. So I won't answer this question in detail. See my comment about "land ownership versus stewardship" above.
Nothing requires "a collective solution". I am tempted to say "voluntary interaction requires collective agreement", but that's not true either.
Why? Because that is an invalid formulation. In fact, this is a good example that shows why one must eventually recognize that most fundamental distinctions of humans that I keep mentioning, namely "producer" and "predator".
Why? Because NO "collective solution" is possible with predators. That's an important aspect of the difference between "producer" and "predator". A predator does whatever it/he/she wants to, with no regard to "collective solutions" whatsoever. If the predator thinks it can get away with the actions it wants to take, then the predator will take those actions. Thus, one important point about predators that I keep harping on is precisely this... "no collective solutions are possible with predators". Of course predators often PRETEND to engage in agreements and "collective solutions", but only as a device to mislead and harm others (especially producers).
And so, anything remotely like a "collective solution" ONLY applies to producers.
One very major and important reason to identify the fundamental distinction between predators and producers is precisely to separate the two sets of beings because almost the entire set of feasible interactions are radically different.
#1: predator and predator - both do whatever they wish.
#2: predator and producer - predator does whatever it wishes, and producer defends self against predator (exterminate predator if possible, otherwise evade harm).
#3: producer and producer - both producers limit themselves to actions that do not harm other producers OR formulate voluntary agreements with all other producers who might be harmed (or who wish to collaborate or participate).
-----
In principle, one human can do almost anything the entire population of earth can do. The exceptions are few. Until recently, reproduction required two individuals. Playing tennis requires two [or more] individuals. Playing baseball requires ~18+ individuals. And so forth.
However, in principle one human can do anything and everything necessary for survival and for unlimited development of science, engineering, technology, exploration and so forth.
At the moment, however, it is not quite practical for one individual to do everything an individual might want to do (not counting unnecessary activities like games and sports). However, I am already in a position to survive and be comfortable the rest of my natural organic lifespan without any other human beings on planet earth. And I am in the nearly unique position of possibly (barely, maybe) being able to survive literally forever and achieve literally anything that any collective of humans could achieve without any other human beings on planet earth (or elsewhere). In a few years, I and a few others should (hopefully) reach that state.
And so, the most advanced humans are already very close to the point where no human collectives are necessary, or even "very convenient". This doesn't mean we will run away and hide from all our collaborators once we reach that point, because human interaction can be both beneficial and enjoyable... but only when the humans only interact in mutually voluntary ways (as described elsewhere).
Note again that "collective solutions" do not apply to [human] predators.
Why? Because NO "collective solution" is possible with predators.
In the case of "all" preditors in the United States, they have been eliminated (or otherwise controlled) by a "collective solution". In fact, in all the Americas (and all the world actually), human predators have also been eliminated (or otherwise controlled) by collective action. Who is the predator is in the eyes of the beholder.
Cases of the "pig and the python" abound historically and in the present.
That's an important aspect of the difference between "producer" and "predator". A predator does whatever it/he/she wants to, with no regard to "collective solutions" whatsoever.
Does this preclude a predator from also being a producer? If so, is it by some real natural phenomena... or just a restriction imposed by your model (i.e. point of view)?
Do predators never operate as collectives? The mobs of the world will be surprised to learn of that!
honestann: And so, anything remotely like a "collective solution" ONLY applies to producers.
So those who bring us our hemp and our poppies and our cocoa ... are they predators or producers? Before hemp and poppies were declared illegal (by the real predators), were those who created and delivered those goods predators ... or producers?
honestann:
#1: predator and predator - both do whatever they wish.
A mortgage broker once told me all he wanted was a "fair" advantage. Was he a predator or a producer?
#2: predator and producer - predator does whatever it wishes, and producer defends self against predator (exterminate predator if possible, otherwise evade harm).
In reality, peaceful coexistance seems to be the order of the day. In reality we all have traits of producers and predators. Is a used car salesman are producer? A predator? How abouta new car salesman. How about a prescription drug salesman? How about a snake oil salesman? How about someone who moves next to an airport and then complains about the noise?
#3: producer and producer - both producers limit themselves to actions that do not harm other producers OR formulate voluntary agreements with all other producers who might be harmed (or who wish to collaborate or participate).
Things like granges and coops came into being largely to protect producers from themselves. They viewed middlemen as predators.
Was Tesla a predator on Edison when he came up with A/C generators, transmission lines, and motors? Was Edison a predator when he did everything he could to defeat Tesla's obviously better idea? Was Westinghouse a predator or producer when he helped Tesla? Was JPMorgan a predator or producer when he helped both Tesla and Edison? How would you classify each in terms of predator and producer?
Not so simple is it?
honestann: However, in principle one human can do anything and everything necessary for survival and for unlimited development of science, engineering, technology, exploration and so forth.
Can you point to a single case in all of history andnature where that has been the case with any animal ... that is has avoided extinction without significant collaboration with its species?
Does it make sense to talk of a principle where no instance of it has ever existed?
I make such a claim about money ... proper management of a Medium of Exchange (MOE) has never existed.
I make a claim that that doesn't preclude proper management of an MOE from being a known possibility.
In fact, technology is making it not only possible ... but probable.
Further I submit that multiple MOEs can and do coexist and they are not all equal. But a properly managed MOE has never existed and there is huge resistance keeping it from existing (just like there was huge resistance to accepting that everything doesn't revolve around the earth).
honestann: However, I am already in a position to survive and be comfortable the rest of my natural organic lifespan without any other human beings on planet earth. And I am in the nearly unique position of possibly (barely, maybe) being able to survive literally forever and achieve literally anything that any collective of humans could achieve without any other human beings on planet earth (or elsewhere). In a few years, I and a few others should (hopefully) reach that state.
So you have reached exit velocity. But of course, you must admit you couldn't have reached exit velocity with out the current help and previous contributions of others ... almost totally acting in a collective ... albeit uncoordinaged and un-centrally planned ... way.
But like being in geo-synchronous orbit, your statement can only exist in a short time and space. It cannont go on unaided (at least not by current technology ... unless they finally have things like ion engines working and practically applied).
As far as reaching that state in a few years ... perhaps. But like in 1620, you and those few others probably won't make it through the winter on your own. And if you do, you (your collective) will certainly soil your nest beyond recognition in a relaltively short period of time. It seems to be the "natural" state of things.
honestann:
Can you agree to the following?:
(1) There are cases where a concensus solution is preferable to an individual solution? (e.g. a road between property A and property C which is blocked by property B).
(2) We must always search for a solution that requires a minimal concensus. (e.g. a plurality of insurance choices)
Can you agree that (1) and (2) are in conflict with each other?
Can you agree that democracy cannot address (1) or (2) or the conflict between them?
To your #1, absolutely yes. Where individuals form voluntary agreements, virtually the entire agreement could be called "a consensus" (of all parties involved).
The road example is not a good one, because it tends to depend upon an invalid understanding of "land ownership", which I briefly discussed in another reply to you.
To your #2, absolutely NOT. For example, why on earth would I need to get a consensus (or any input whatsoever from anyone) before I settle on a floor-plan for the home I am planning to build?
#1 and #2 are NOT in conflict with each other.
Why? Because in a rational world, most decisions we make, and most actions we take are entirely individual. Every decision every individual makes is 100% up to themselves. Period. What may not be 100% up to each individual is the set of actions they take. However, each individual can take any action that does not harm others without agreement or consensus from others.
BUT... sometimes individuals can benefit greatly by voluntary interactions with other individuals (and/or goods they own). In those cases, the individuals attempt to reach a "consensus" with each other, which we call "an agreement". When they can and do, that is perfectly fine (as long as they don't take actions that harm others who are not part of their agreement).
And so, #1 and #2 are fully complementary and NOT at all in conflict with each other.
Democracy is a form of slavery. As such, any actions taken on the basis of "democracy" are inherently predatory (except in the very unusual case where everyone impacted by actions taken agree, as in a democratic vote that ends up being 100% "yes" votes with NOBODY excluded and EVERYONE voting. The reason "democracy" is inherently invalid and corrupt is because "not everyone is involved in voluntary interactions". For a majority to "gang up" on individuals is not valid, ethical or benevolent. This should be obvious, but of course most humans never bother to think concepts through, so many accept atrocities like "democracy".
Note that 100% votes are the only valid and ethical way to "modify agreements" or "add new individuals to existing agreements". This is perfectly normal.
http://libertygibbert.com/2015/04/03/the-right-to-discriminate/
farmerbraun: the right to discriminate.
As I have aserted, a right is a "defended claim".
Without even reading your link I can claim I can descriminate (and would like to enjoy that claim). But society has now precluded my ability to defend that claim ... so I don't have that right. I had it 70 years ago when I was born. The pendalum will eventually swing back ... if not be jerked back ... because to deny that right is ultimately unnatural. But it won't swing back in my lifetime ... sans a reset event ... and I'm running out of time to experience that.
honestann: Democracy is a form of slavery.
Agreed ... and until that becomes widely known (as it was before I was born), we will have that form of slavery.
honestann: Why? Because in a rational world, most decisions we make, and most actions we take are entirely individual.
Actually, it is the "rational world" that keeps us from making entirely individual decisions. That's the very essence of "rationality".
Every decision every individual makes is 100% up to themselves. Period.
Every decision every individual makes is 100% influenced by the context in which he makes it. As he does not control that context, he does not control his decisions. Your "period" has feet of clay.
What may not be 100% up to each individual is the set of actions they take. However, each individual can take any action that does not harm others without agreement or consensus from others.
Actually, actions individuals take is 100% up to them. Individuals can not only take actions that harm others (and do), with or without consensus, they can take actions that harm themselves (and do). Such actions are irrational on their face but that doesn't preclude an individual taking them. And of course, individuals can "rationalize" anything. It's called "delusion".
Yes, of course any individual can take any action they are capable of taking. I thought the context was "ethically", and that was the context I assumed. If the context was "none", then my first sentence (and what you said) is correct.
As for "clay". A decision occurs in your mind. To be sure, your mind may be chock full of absolutely insane nonsense that you allowed others to insert and convince you to habituate and take seriously.
Nonetheless, it was you (your mind) that monitored this entire process, and so your mind is making the decision. Every decision you make is made by you. And also relevant (if the context is ethics), there is NO thought in your mind or my mind or any other mind that harms or destroys others or their property. And so, in the context of ethics, you can consider ANY thought and make ANY decision, no matter how egregeously evil and revolting and destructive without being unethical.
And so, this is a distinction. There cannot be "thought crimes", not even "decision crimes" (crimes meaning "unethical" here, since "crime" is fiction because it depends on another fiction, namely "law"). But actions definitely can cause harm, and so ethics applies to actions, not thoughts.
honestann: The reason "democracy" is inherently invalid and corrupt is because "not everyone is involved in voluntary interactions".
The reasons are numerous. A more important reason is that "not everyone" is paying attention. And even if they were, "not everyone" has access to accurate and true information. Most, if paying attention, are paying attention to propaganda.
Polls are a measure of the effectiveness of the propaganda. When the polls assure those in control of prevailing in a vote, the vote is then taken. When they can't prevail in the vote, the vote is co-opted.
Test it for yourself. Try asking people why WTC7 fell down. By my personal poll, only 9 out of 151 by present count, even know it did fall down.
honestann: Note that 100% votes are the only valid and ethical way to "modify agreements" or "add new individuals to existing agreements". This is perfectly normal.
And isn't it interesting that at our "supreme" level, a 5 to 4 majority can decide.
By my way of thinking, if at the supreme level a 9 to 0 decision can not be achieved, the issue obviously can't and shouldn't be decided.
No issue can be ethically resolved without voluntary agreement of everyone impacted. Of course one individual can decide for the entire planet if they have the means or power, but then that's not ethical. And that's the point.
When I say "ironic", I refer to the fact that those who are the "authoritiarian" side of the divide are precisely the people who claim to "care about their fellow man", while those of us on the "individualist" side of the divide are "don't care about their fellow man".
My poll is inconclusive and inadequate but the results are as follows:
I show someone a video of WTC7 falling down (or ask them to tell me about it).
Of 149 individuals I have polled so far, only 9 have known what they were looking at (or could tell me about WTC7).
Of less than a dozen "authoritarians" I have asked, zero have known about it. Of those who I have seen polled by others (on CSPAN for example), none will admit that the government's conspiracy theory in general and the NIST report in particular is total nonsense.
How does that reflect on your comment?
Again, I'm not sure what you are asking. I know most humans are close to "clueless", and don't even seriously consider questions like "what is government" or "what is the nature of government".
So a great many humans certainly have no freaking idea about many specific issues, because they don't bother to notice, or observe, or consider important questions. They "go with the flow".
So I don't know what connection your reply has to my comment. You'd have to be more specific for me to notice what kind of connection you mean.
honestann:
So a great many humans certainly have no freaking idea about many specific issues, because they don't bother to notice, or observe, or consider important questions. They "go with the flow".
The really scary ones are the ones who have "a freaking idea" and their idea is obviously wrong and can be easily proved so.
So I don't know what connection your reply has to my comment. You'd have to be more specific for me to notice what kind of connection you mean.
You made a distinction between "authoritarians" and "individual". I noted that when it comes to knowing things like "why WTC7 fell down" the authoritrians were equal as clueless as the individuals ... by my personal polling.
Except the authoritarians who caused the events of 911 to happen. 100% of them know what happened. :-)
Humans don't understand how utterly fundamental this distinction is. If they did, they'd see the "tax collector" and "everyone in government" in precisely the same way as a wild animal coming after them with intent to eat them alive.
In that regard, I don't see my grocer as a wild animal coming after me with the intent to eat me alive. I do see all governments as such (albeit, the smaller the government entity, the more I agree with the services they tax me to deliver and thus I find less adversarial).
How does that fit your framework?
Wow. I said "tax collector" and "everyone in government"... then you say you don't consider "your grocer" to be a predator.
I'm not sure what is your point or how this makes sense? Why would you presume I claim "your grocer is a predator"? I'm lost!
Maybe a way to make this issue simpler is the following. No matter WHAT people call themselves, or how they or you classify them, anyone who interacts with you in a fully voluntary manner is not a predator.
Is that easier to understand?
You may have read in one of my posts that if those human beings who currently call themselves "government" were to continue operating... BUT... make all their "services" completely voluntary in every way (with no "tricks" to force people to subscribe, or restrictions on liberty for those who do not subscribe), then all those people would instantly become NON-predators (at least as far as their jobs are concerned).
The distinction really is that simple. However, having said that, some cases and situations are not immediately obvious, mostly due to the corruption of fundamental concepts by human predators. For example, "land ownership" is impossible and self-contradictory, since any legitimate meaning of "ownership" is a corollary of "causality". More specifically, you "own" something when you "create" that something. Obviously, no human "created earth", and so no human can "own earth" (or any portion of earth).
This doesn't mean something similar to "land ownership" cannot exist, but a more appropriate term might be "land stewardship", which is somewhat different, but also somewhat similar. When you improve land, you pretty much create all those improvements, and thus you do own those improvements. The more improvements you make, the more completely your land becomes exclusive to you, because others can't do much on your land without harming or stealing your improvements. But I don't want to get into details of just one unconventional case like this, I want to explain the principle, which I hope I did sufficiently for you to understand the point.
Note that even if you LIKE some "government" program or "service", if you are required to pay for that "service", you are a slave, the providers are predators, and they should be exterminated for their attempt to enslave you.
Nobody has ever provided any good or valid or legitimate reason human beings cannot, or should not, interact voluntarily. To be sure, disingenuous intellectual perverts attempt to object to these kinds of ideas by making absurd claims. For example, one might say, "withglee and I do not have purely voluntary interactions, because she breathes without my agreement". These kinds of silly claims and distractions may confuse some people, but hopefully not someone like you.
Wow. I said "tax collector" and "everyone in government"... then you say you don't consider "your grocer" to be a predator.
My government provides services (among them filling potholes) and I pay for them with taxes. My grocer provides a service (getting food from the fields onto shelves near my home) which I pay for on-the-spot in cash. I need the services I get from both, and in that regard I don't view either as a preditor. They are both in the service business.
Grocers are seen as preditors by some ... but they have a choice of grocer.
Governments force me into paying for many services I don't want ... and I have no choice of another government. In that regard, government is a preditor.
PR-editor.
Aaah , got it.!
No matter WHAT people call themselves, or how they or you classify them, anyone who interacts with you in a fully voluntary manner is not a predator.
Is that easier to understand?
Yes. Is that the context I'm to view your use of the word "predator"? For 20 years I didn't view my banker as a predator. It turns out that is because I didn't realize they could do things to me without my permission. Turns out they can. What they did was a breach of trust and had nothing to do with their creating fiat out of thin air.
then all those people would instantly become NON-predators (at least as far as their jobs are concerned).
I concur. I'm anxious to see how you propose that coming about.
About as likely as lions being able to stop being predators.
Still, about a percent of mankind has evolved to the level of voluntary interaction and it only took several million years.
So try and evolve a bit and join the most disliked minority: those who don't claim others as property to be manipulated, controlled and used.
For example, "land ownership" is impossible and self-contradictory, since any legitimate meaning of "ownership" is a corollary of "causality". More specifically, you "own" something when you "create" that something. Obviously, no human "created earth", and so no human can "own earth" (or any portion of earth).
So you know all about Henry George and his thoughts on this subject, right? Do you agree with him? If not, where do you disagree?
I never heard of Henry George, and never read topics like this. I figured most of this stuff out myself. However, I am lucky to know two other individuals who also thought many fundamental issues through thoroughly, and I did improve some of my formulations during brainstorming sessions with them.
honestann: I never heard of Henry George, and never read topics like this. I figured most of this stuff out myself.
Hopefully you've now googled Henry George and looked into it ... if only to reinforce your thoughts. He figured it out himself too.
I think you both get it wrong and I can support my opinion. George is not around to debate with ... just like Mises isn't around to debate with. And like Mises, there is a collection of "George Monks" who try to carry his torch ... but don't understand first principles. They just regurgitate.
I have heard nothing from you or anyone else to make me question my understanding of these topics. And I just don't have time to read books about topics I thoroughly understand, in fact, more thoroughly than anyone else I've ever read in the past.
I wish I had 1000 lifetimes to waste reading, but I don't.
That sounds absurd and something a diehard collectivist would embrace: that you didn't create yourself or what you are made of so you can't own yourself either. Bullshit beliefs that lead to a permanent ant colony.
So how about this? You live with those who believe land can't be owned and I'll live with those who do.
Well, your connection to yourself is even MORE direct and fundamental than the justification for "ownership". The relationship between you and yourself is IDENTITY. You ARE yourself.
But that's not all. You must take endless actions, and consume (invest) huge quantities of goods to keep yourself alive. So the fact IS, you may not have created the newborn baby that is you, but any adult most certainly has created their current self, at least in large measure if not far-and-away dominant measure.
So if anyone says "you don't own yourself", the only reason for that attitude is that your connection to yourself is stronger and more fundamental than ownership. But it is also reasonable to claim you also own yourself, since you would have perished if not for a long term continuous set of actions that keep you alive (keep you in existence).
In other words, you DID cause your CURRENT existence. And so you CAN own yourself, though the identity relationship is even more fundamental.
As for land, go read my other messages about why cannot be owned (creation is what creates ownership, and nobody created earth or "the land"). However, this does NOT mean the concept of "land stewardship" is invalid (and in practice has consequences that are very close "ownership"). Note that every good, goodie, supplies, equipment, structures, dwellings, pipes, crops, landscaping and so forth ON the land IS your property (owned by you), and thus nobody else has a legitimate basis to harm or steal any of those improvements. To the extent your improvements to the land cannot be separated from the land, you essentially have almost the same relationship to the land as conventional "ownership". Just not quite the same. For example, if you are steward of some huge tract of land including wide open spaces, you cannot object to people hiking through the open spaces as long as they do not harm or steal anything you own.
So there is a distinction, but not a very big one. In the case of small plots of land, there is little if any difference between "land ownership" and "land stewardship". Note that the long-standing laws that state you lose "ownership" of land once you fail to improve or maintain that land for 2+ years comes from the concept of "land stewardship". Otherwise you and your descendents could own 1000 square miles of land for 10,000 years without making any improvements or even maintence, and that has never been considered acceptable in any version of "land ownership".
honestann: Note that every good, goodie, supplies, equipment, structures, dwellings, pipes, crops, landscaping and so forth ON the land IS your property (owned by you), and thus nobody else has a legitimate basis to harm or steal any of those improvements.
How about the iron ore that went into making the pipes. That wasn't mine. By your definition it wasn't the pipe maker's either. It was land.
How about the clay that went into the pot that I made? That wasn't mine. It was land. And that land is no longer land. It is water that filled the hole that was made to give me the clay.
The land that was once coal is a water filled strip mine. Even the "reclaimed" land is a depression where the coal used to be ... unless some other non-owner used it as a repository for solid waste.
And what if that greenhouse of yours is found to be sitting over a mother lode of gold. Whose gold is it? Remember, we need that gold for your money ideas to work ... it's for the "greater" good.
And who pays to move your greenhouse when it is obvious the "higher if not best" use of that space if for digging the gold?
Not so simple is it.
Actually, not so difficult. Think about it.
-----
If you own something because you formed (cast, machined, whatever) the raw materials into the shape required, and then assembled and finished those components into something functional and valuable, you created that assembly.
You are correct to say you don't own the iron ore that lies around on the earth. However, nobody else does either. And so, you are the sole owner of that item, because you are the creator (of that configuration of reality == "real material").
The notion that ownership flows primarily from the material is a common mistake. This is an easy mistake to make, because this is the way most people implicitly think about it, and very few people explicitly think about the issue. But the reverse is true. It is almost always the configuration or configurations of substances that a human creates that has value, and thus the source of value.
Incidentally, notice that if you completely vaporize almost any good or goodie, it ceases to have value (it is a pile of dust, which you will sweep up and discard in the trash). Even if that vaporized good was a bar of gold, and the vapor or dust was scattered randomly in the top 30 meters of your yard, you would not bother to "go pick it up", because they coherence of the gold (the "purity") is too low to value (the cost to reconfigure into a pure form exceeds the value). I hope this helps you see in no uncertain terms that the configuration is where the value lies, and is also where ownership lies.
-----
If someone figures out there is a boatload of gold under my greenhouse, they are welcome (as far as ethics goes) to extract that gold as long as they can do so without harming me or my goods. At the moment someone figures out "there is gold down there", that gold does not belong to anyone.
And nobody can ethically force me to move my greenhouse to make it easier to get to the gold. If they want the gold, they have to take the actions required to get the gold. Sometimes the natural configuration of earth makes getting to resources difficult (natural underground water sources keep flooding the mine). Sometimes existing human (owned) creations makes getting to resources difficult (must create a long underground tunnel in order to avoid harming me or my stuff).
-----
As you see, there is nothing difficult about these topics once you've invested sufficient time, effort and honesty into figuring them out. And frankly, that final item (honesty) is the one most often ejected out the airlock, usually because the answer isn't want the "thinker" wanted.
-----
BTW, let me tell you one (of many) intellectual devices that makes thinking about issues that involve human beings. Assume I create an experimental device that transports you and a few family and friends to a planet 10 billion light years from earth, along with basic startup supplies and equipment. You will never see any sentient being again except those who went with you, and those born to you and your pioneering friends.
What is the appropriate, ethical way to live?
Will you all just apply your individual skills to the materials the planet provides and trade the goods and goodies you create voluntarily?
Will you or one of your friends (or will you advise your grandchild) to declare some "fictional" authority over everyone else, so they don't have to work to live, but force others to work to support them (not to mention "do everything her way")?
There are many minor variations on this question, but fundamentally they ALL come down to two approaches. Either you and your friends (and everyone subsequently born) refuse to harm each other or steal from each other (voluntary interaction), or some one or subset decides to manipulate (enslave) the rest of you to get whatever they deem "appropriate".
Whether you call this or these human predators "mafia" or "the clan" or "government" or "Queen Glee" makes no significant difference. What makes a difference is which approach you choose.
As I said, this is an excellent device to help you THINK about the topics we and others (and mankind in general) discuss. Why? Humans tend to get confused when:
#1: A system (common behaviors) already exists, especially for a long time, perhaps even generations, centuries or millennia. In my example, you and your friends start out with ZERO system, just a bunch of individuals. So you can have a clean mental slate when you think about how you should interact.
#2: Endless fictional concepts have already been pre-programmed into the consciousness of virtually everyone, and endless propaganda supporting and promoting these fictional concepts are everywhere.
#3: The number of individuals is enormous, and the number of activities they engage in is also enormous. The problem here is simply the fact that not everyone is aware of all the activities and issues involved with them, and so their brains are more inclined to accept bogus arguments that "some classes of human need different treatment".
This device I mention attempts to remove those problems. It isn't perfect, of course, because your brain already contains all those bogus fictions.
BUT...
You just started living on that planet. So nobody has [pretended to] implement ANY of those fictions yet. Thus you have to think about whether you want to, have a valid, legitiate basis to do so, and whether doing so would be ethical or not.
So, this device will help, but you must still think carefully at every step. Before you promote ANYTHING beyond voluntary interactions, consider very carefully. This is your opportunity to develop a valid, legitimate, ethical set of ideas, not simply adopt whatever nonsense developed in that petri dish (culture) called earth.
Give it a try. Start with ZERO assumptions. Frankly, if you (or anyone) doesn't do that, they are almost certain to absorb endless bogus nonsense, and build endless more bogus nonsense on the pile of nonsense that already exists, creating total disaster just like happened on earth.
because others can't do much on your land without harming or stealing your improvements. But I don't want to get into details of just one unconventional case like this, I want to explain the principle, which I hope I did sufficiently for you to understand the point.
Well, there is that notion of the 99 year lease. Does that satisfy you? If not, what are you proposing?
You cannot own land, so you cannot lease land. You can own goods, goodies, supplies, equipment, buildings and so forth, so you can lease them.
What I'm saying may sound strange, because only because it is a very unconventional way to think. Namely... if you put a fence around the [big piece of land] that contains your goods, goodies, equipment, supplies and whatever you own, the difficulty of getting over the fence will convince everyone, or virtually everyone, to walk or drive or fly or pole-vault over that area (which is not your property, but all the stuff is).
However, if someone goes to the effort to get over your fence without harming your fence, and walks across the land where you have all your goods, goodies, supplies, equipment and stuff stored, and does so without harming any of your stuff, and exits the other end without harming that part of the fence too... then they have done you no harm. And since you cannot own the land, no-harm == no-foul.
To be sure, humans will adopt conventions that look a lot like current behavior. If you erect a big honking barb-wire fence, few if anyone will ever attempt to pass through that area. On the other hand, if you live in some very rural, low population density area, and have lots of open space nearby you with your goods, goodies, supplies and equipment spread around with lots of space between, you can expect (just like today) hikers and other folks to walk through that area you might nominally (but not literally) think of as "your land".
Any area that might be easily harmed must be well posted. You can't expect people to not walk on open land that seems just like open land if you are doing something non-obvious. For example, if you just planted some super fragile seeds in an otherwise empty-looking field, you must post signs warning people around the field, or not complain when they wander on through.
honestann: What I'm saying may sound strange, because only because it is a very unconventional way to think.
It's sounds strange to me that someone can own land that is removed but can't own land from which land is removed. It's not about conventional thinking. It's about rational thinking. I always wonder how "rational" and "rationalize" are related, as in this case you have "rationalized" away the "rational".
How so? Talk about rationalization! What is one of the most extreme rationalizations? Probably saying "you are wrong" and then providing exactly ZERO statement of how or why! Which is precisely what you did. What's the greek phrase I'm supposed to say now? I forget.
Currently, owning property generally means renting it from governments that have no basis for claims of ownership.
Why the 99 year lease? Does it revert back to governments or banks so that they can sell it and make money on something that isn't theirs? Animals don't have a concept of another owning property. Is that where you're coming from?
If you own property you are not harming others because they obviously can't suffer a loss on something they don't own. I don't own anything of yours, if your things were stolen or destroyed it wouldn't harm me. Actions you support would.
anusocracy:
Currently, owning property generally means renting it from governments that have no basis for claims of ownership.
Some say possession is nine-tenths of the law. Turned out not to work for the aboriginal americans. I like the "collection of rights" definition, where the definition of a right as "a defended claim" is kept firmly in mind.
Why the 99 year lease? Does it revert back to governments or banks so that they can sell it and make money on something that isn't theirs?
It moves the problem past the point that any of the present combatants care.
Animals don't have a concept of another owning property. Is that where you're coming from?
Animals have very strong territorial traits ... even domesticated ones.
If you own property you are not harming others because they obviously can't suffer a loss on something they don't own. I don't own anything of yours, if your things were stolen or destroyed it wouldn't harm me. Actions you support would.
If you own property by purchasing it from someone else's ill-gotten-gain, you have a potential issue. Even we who recognize property rights also embrace a concept of adverse possession (squatters rights.) It's embraced in Costa Rica too ... only far more strongly
According to Costa Rican law, a person can acquire rights to a property if the property owner allows that person to use or maintain possession of the property for more than a year. Once the property has been acquired it cannot be taken away, except for reasons such as eminent domain, and then only with proper compensation.
If a person has held possession of a property for at least ten years, that person can go to court, claim full ownership of the property and register the property at the Registro Publico.
If a landlord does not take action to evict squatters during the first three months of their invasion, then squatters may not be evicted at all. If the landlord does not take action within a year, the squatter has a right to demand compensation for any improvements he has made to the land.
- See more at: http://costarica.com/real-estate/squatters-rights/#sthash.iw5yjRs7.dpuf