Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Meaning of Banning Cash
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Meaning of Banning Cash (Read 2313 times)
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4870
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #10 - Mar 5th, 2017 at 8:11pm
Print Post  
merkelstan wrote on Mar 5th, 2017 at 6:40pm:
Now what does cashless buy the powers that be? A level of control never dreamed of by any tyrant in history.


Control of their own property. They're just creating a situation that makes their property extremely fruitful and the property of others nigh-worthless. Negative interest basically equals negative worth.

BobK71 wrote on Mar 5th, 2017 at 5:58pm:
Somewhere along the line in these complex processes, the monopoly on violence always comes into play.


That's not good enough. If we can identify where, we can call that aggression. That, and no more.

Even so, this basically reduces to an even more morally ambiguous version of the hitman problem. Is it aggression to pay a hitman to kill for you?

The only way you can say yes is if there is a binding contractual obligation to kill, and someone on here said that such a contract is not binding by definition. But even then, we're not dealing with obligation - we're dealing with loyalty. The aggressive force - the government - acts in a way beneficial to the banks through lobbying (which is just advocacy) and in hopes of building future loyalty.

It's analogous to paying a very large and perhaps even largely unsolicited sum of protection money to a gang without any specific obligations as to what's done with it. The gang uses your massive donation to use aggression to advantage you, but you didn't tell them to do this, so you're blameless.

I wouldn't do something like this myself because it's obviously wrong on a moral level, but since it's not aggression, it's also wrong (on every level) to act against someone doing it.

I've come to the conclusion that this is what Libertarianism is about, ultimately. Individuals are bound by moral obligations, and the elites are protected from retaliations generated solely by failure to adhere to those extra-NAP obligations. As has been said, fairness is merely a crutch that allows the mentally feeble to participate in discussions they have no business in.

I quite like it.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 18733
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #11 - Mar 6th, 2017 at 10:40am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Mar 5th, 2017 at 8:11pm:
That's not good enough. If we can identify where, we can call that aggression. That, and no more.


He mentioned the government having a monopoly on violence... Do you not understand what that means?

We give the government a monopoly on violence so they can punish individuals that are fairly judged to have acted violently against others. The idea is to both deter violence and prevent vigilante "justice" and lynchings.

It's easy enough to identify where the government acts outside the rules we have prescribed for it for it's use of the monopoly on violence. Extrajudicial killing by the government is itself an illegal violent act...

A government ban of money is certainly outside their Constitutional grant of powers. We gave them the authority to create (coin) stable money so we don't have to devote our time and resources to playing games worrying about the value of fiat money and can get on with our lives.

I simply can't imagine that totally electronic "money" will magically be stable in value.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BobK71
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 476
Joined: Jun 12th, 2015
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #12 - Mar 6th, 2017 at 4:59pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Mar 5th, 2017 at 8:11pm:
That's not good enough. If we can identify where, we can call that aggression. That, and no more.

Even so, this basically reduces to an even more morally ambiguous version of the hitman problem. Is it aggression to pay a hitman to kill for you?

The only way you can say yes is if there is a binding contractual obligation to kill, and someone on here said that such a contract is not binding by definition. But even then, we're not dealing with obligation - we're dealing with loyalty. The aggressive force - the government - acts in a way beneficial to the banks through lobbying (which is just advocacy) and in hopes of building future loyalty.

It's analogous to paying a very large and perhaps even largely unsolicited sum of protection money to a gang without any specific obligations as to what's done with it. The gang uses your massive donation to use aggression to advantage you, but you didn't tell them to do this, so you're blameless.

I wouldn't do something like this myself because it's obviously wrong on a moral level, but since it's not aggression, it's also wrong (on every level) to act against someone doing it.

I've come to the conclusion that this is what Libertarianism is about, ultimately. Individuals are bound by moral obligations, and the elites are protected from retaliations generated solely by failure to adhere to those extra-NAP obligations. As has been said, fairness is merely a crutch that allows the mentally feeble to participate in discussions they have no business in.

I quite like it.


I guess our differences again boil down to (what I suppose is) anarcho-capitalism vs. the minimal state that I like.

My problem with the NAP has always been the lack of enforcement.  If someone wants to violate the NAP for personal gain, with the rest of the population conforming to the NAP, there's nothing to stop him gaining an advantage, is there?  If so, eventually, the incentives will drive more and more to abandon the NAP.  (Or to adopt a state.)

My idea of libertarian heaven is to have a state, but that the state sticks to what everyone agrees it should do: protection of life, limb and property, and the enforcement of contracts.

All of the problems I detail are rooted in the state's using its monopoly on violence to do things other than the above.  Enlightenment principles don't allow the state to ban political speech, arrest and detain at will, or seize property at will.  It's high time they also ban the state from managing money or finance.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4870
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #13 - Mar 6th, 2017 at 9:32pm
Print Post  
BobK71 wrote on Mar 6th, 2017 at 4:59pm:
I guess our differences again boil down to (what I suppose is) anarcho-capitalism vs. the minimal state that I like.


If you can construct a principle like the NAP, but one that does not forbid government, I might go for it. I don't want to live in Somalia either (no one does) but it's a matter of right and wrong.

I mean, I did that, with my theory of agreement-based rights, but people called me an idiot and rejected me out of hand, so AnCap it is.

BobK71 wrote on Mar 6th, 2017 at 4:59pm:
My problem with the NAP has always been the lack of enforcement.  If someone wants to violate the NAP for personal gain, with the rest of the population conforming to the NAP, there's nothing to stop him gaining an advantage, is there?  If so, eventually, the incentives will drive more and more to abandon the NAP.  (Or to adopt a state.)


No disagreement here. It's not about what will happen, though - it's about right and wrong. That's why you can't kill one healthy person to harvest his organs and save six sick ones.

BobK71 wrote on Mar 6th, 2017 at 4:59pm:
My idea of libertarian heaven is to have a state, but that the state sticks to what everyone agrees it should do: protection of life, limb and property, and the enforcement of contracts.


It can't stick to that. It must also thieve to do that.

BobK71 wrote on Mar 6th, 2017 at 4:59pm:
All of the problems I detail are rooted in the state's using its monopoly on violence to do things other than the above.  Enlightenment principles don't allow the state to ban political speech, arrest and detain at will, or seize property at will.  It's high time they also ban the state from managing money or finance.


The reasons not to let them have their fingers in money are all grounded in result, rather than principle.

Every single person who has a political opinion is at heart a classist. It believes that by some virtue it has (such as being poor) the political system should advantage it. The key to understanding leftism is that there are two classes that should rise: The poor and the politicians... while other classes should be less.

The key to understanding any political philosophy is who is intended as the upper class, and the next-highest, and so on and so forth. You understand the intended hierarchy and you understand what is always an otherwise jumbled apocrypha. For libertarianism, money is god. Effective power is fine, such as owning all the private courts and simply not enforcing on your own hitmen. Just so long as actual de jure power outside the NAP is precluded. Libertarianism means the elites of wealth are intended to be on top. I can respect that.

Jeff wrote on Mar 6th, 2017 at 10:40am:
He mentioned the government having a monopoly on violence... Do you not understand what that means?


Of course I do. And when you actually find the monkey, you may kill it. Nebulous accusations of "vaguely somehow at some juncture enabled by the State's monopoly on violence" does not cut it.

The State is wrong, not those merely using its aggression for profit. You're allowed to bet on the rabid horse. You're allowed to bet on any horse.

Jeff wrote on Mar 6th, 2017 at 10:40am:
We give the government a monopoly on violence so they can punish individuals that are fairly judged to have acted violently against others. The idea is to both deter violence and prevent vigilante "justice" and lynchings.

It's easy enough to identify where the government acts outside the rules we have prescribed for it for it's use of the monopoly on violence. Extrajudicial killing by the government is itself an illegal violent act...

A government ban of money is certainly outside their Constitutional grant of powers. We gave them the authority to create (coin) stable money so we don't have to devote our time and resources to playing games worrying about the value of fiat money and can get on with our lives.


I am not arguing that the government is not culpable in this. I know they are. The government, acting aggressively, is a thug.

Jeff wrote on Mar 6th, 2017 at 10:40am:
I simply can't imagine that totally electronic "money" will magically be stable in value.


Electronic money will not be stable in value. And gruel doesn't taste very good. But when there's nothing else, people eat it.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 18733
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #14 - Mar 8th, 2017 at 8:35am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Mar 6th, 2017 at 9:32pm:
Electronic money will not be stable in value. And gruel doesn't taste very good. But when there's nothing else, people eat it.

Here's something that tastes better...

http://thecrux.com/this-state-is-challenging-the-feds-money-monopoly/
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BobK71
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 476
Joined: Jun 12th, 2015
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #15 - Mar 8th, 2017 at 9:38am
Print Post  
FWIW, for now, WRT AnCap, this is what I wrote on a different forum:

I'm not a believer in grand paradigm shifts -- they tend to have the problem that no one really understands all the unintended consequences until they happen.

A good part of what makes the current imperial-financial system so durable is that it is a small (but profound) change from what would be a great system, i.e. a truly free market economy and minimalist government.  The small and hidden change is having the state take over money, while the elites keep up the deception that it is a free-market system.

If it's a small departure from a healthy system, only a small correction is required.

During the last period of imperial decline (late 19th and early 20th centuries,) disillusion with the system also brought out many diverse ideas, from nihilism to totalitarianism.  I'm thinking we might be living in that age again.

WRT anarcho-capitalism, my problem with it is that there is no enforcement mechanism.  It's not coincidence that all civilizations across history developed a state.  We just have to keep reforming it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
merkelstan
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 553
Joined: Jan 22nd, 2017
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #16 - Mar 8th, 2017 at 2:33pm
Print Post  
BobK71 wrote on Mar 8th, 2017 at 9:38am:
WRT anarcho-capitalism, my problem with it is that there is no enforcement mechanism. 


AnCap writers have described various solutions for 'enforcement'.

use eyes for reading them
  

"Obviously, the lack of any evidence just proves Russia is behind the lack of evidence." - AZJoe
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 18733
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #17 - Mar 8th, 2017 at 3:39pm
Print Post  
merkelstan wrote on Mar 8th, 2017 at 2:33pm:
AnCap writers have described various solutions for 'enforcement'.

use eyes for reading them

Suppose my neighbor breaks into my garage while I'm away for the weekend and empties it out. Another neighbor sees him do it and tells me who it was...

What's the an-cap enforcement method?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4870
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #18 - Mar 8th, 2017 at 11:00pm
Print Post  
merkelstan wrote on Mar 8th, 2017 at 2:33pm:
AnCap writers have described various solutions for 'enforcement'.

use eyes for reading them


No one doesn't do this. The methods for enforcement are simply lacking in practicality and the justifications that patch them vaguely together are wanting. For example, Rothbard says that rival security companies would never duke it out because it would be harmful to both. By that logic, violence would never occur.

I've described exactly how these methods of enforcement fail numerous times.

Jeff wrote on Mar 8th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
Suppose my neighbor breaks into my garage while I'm away for the weekend and empties it out. Another neighbor sees him do it and tells me who it was...

What's the an-cap enforcement method?


This isn't a problem. You tell your private security company about it and they haul him away.

...Whether he did it or not.  Grin

...Especially if he's not covered. You are covered, and they have a vested interest in keeping the customer happy. If the fellow who "broke in" to your garage isn't even represented, and no private court will represent him charitably, reparation will be extracted from him and all the stolen goods will be replaced. He's allowed to request arbitration from a neutral private court, but if he's not paying (and why in blazes would anyone else?) then it's not happening.

The guy who's covered by your same private security company (who actually did break in) gets to keep the goods. Everyone's happy.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
merkelstan
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 553
Joined: Jan 22nd, 2017
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #19 - Mar 9th, 2017 at 12:22am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Mar 8th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
Suppose my neighbor breaks into my garage while I'm away for the weekend and empties it out. Another neighbor sees him do it and tells me who it was...

What's the an-cap enforcement method?

There isn't just one way - there is a market of solutions.

One way is to take out insurance against theft.  Your insurance co is there to make you whole and try to stick the costs to the perpetrator.

You've never read any AnCap books?  Private security goes back to Gustav De Moliniari in t he 1800s.  Block, Hoppe, Woods and Murphy have all written about it.

Looking around i find an overview of the most important books here:  https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/12/hans-hermann-hoppe/anarcho-capitalism-2/

Lew Rockwell takes a shot at summarizing it here: https://mises.org/library/can-anarcho-capitalism-work
  

"Obviously, the lack of any evidence just proves Russia is behind the lack of evidence." - AZJoe
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Meaning of Banning Cash
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy