The debate is still going on and it is in fact not getting any easier to explain effectively why DBFM should or should not be desirable.
My last attempt here gave rise to all the usual questions followed by all the usual unsatisfactory answers.
Once again however, I’ve come across a nugget of truth that fits neatly in the completion of the final puzzle that should, if not totally debunk, at least help shed light as to why money should be a monopoly of state and if it is, what the arithmetical consequences may be.
In the West we are proud of our democracy because we feel it engenders open societies, open economies thus personal freedom.
But our open, literate and ostensibly civilized societies have allowed government the monopoly of money. To be exact, government has unilaterally and arbitrarily arrogated itself the monopoly over money thereby simply skirting the democratic process and our societies have thought nothing of it; because we are free you see. We can travel; we can pick where to work (to a certain degree, I am Italian so ask me); we can buy property and we generally can enjoy all the trappings of an ostensibly free society.
But if we are open and free societies endeavoring under free markets, then why is there the need for a monetary authority to have the monopoly over money?
As free citizens, why do we not have the right to choose what to exchange our labor for? Our labor is our effort; it is what we deploy in order to improve our lives and expand the wider economy.
Why then should a presumed democratic government want the exclusive privilege to dictate what money is?
In a true “democratic” society, each individual would have the right to choose what they wish to exchange their effort for. Provided it is allowed to compete with any other type of money individuals can choose from, there is nothing wrong with state sponsored money per se. Quite the contrary. In ideal circumstances, state sponsored money should be a steadfast store of value thus of purchasing power, thus enticing everyone and their cousin to make use of state money.
But that is clearly not the case because we have an arbitrary and unilateral monopoly here.
Why then, is money so important that the state has deemed it necessary to impose this particular variety upon society to the exclusion of any other under penalty of violence?
The truth is not entirely intuitive but it becomes gradually more evident as the arithmetical limits of an artificial monetary system are reached.
By imposing DBFM, government sells individuals to the monetary authority. The word is “sells” – individuals are sold into slavery. It is a forward sale to be sure but a sale undisputedly it is. And a mighty future revenue stream it is too.
In return, the monetary authority grants the political establishment the funds necessary for the electoral dog and pony show and funds and encourages the establishment of different political forces and parties including the establishment of those presumed bastions of the rights of the common folk that are the unions. Unions are nothing but the addition of more layers of corrupt and privileged individuals over already bloated and corrupt layers of government – corruption that is an inherent and mathematical ramification of an artificial monetary system.
Money is a natural extension of who we are. Money is a natural right. Money is intrinsically and nominally expensive to produce because our physical and intellectual efforts represent who we are. What is the price of a human life?
By imposing artificial money upon society, government takes control of your effort. By instituting a monetary authority and bestowing upon it the privilege to create the money that society will have to make use of, government has sold your effort to the monetary authority.
Artificial money has no intrinsic value. The liberal creation of fiat money allows the monetary authority to gradually but arithmetically appropriate the wealth of society.
What I am outlining here is not an event of course. This is a dynamic that takes place over generations but the outcome is guaranteed. At the outset, the trap may not be evident. As the system expands, dissent is silenced or brought on side by applying a mix of coercion or flattery or by invoking personal interest. The easiest way to do that of course is to gradually expand government and para governmental institutions. The recent and current crop of politicians have invented nothing that the Romans, the Ottomans, the French or the British before them had not already devised in order to subjugate conquered societies.
Government expansion is usually justified by a mix of vague concepts that relate to justice, peace and safety; safety of the individual as well as safety of professional classes or industries or minorities and justice and peace for the citizens of sundry countries. Naturally however, what remains unseen is that the expansion of government is the primary cause of the lack of safety, justice and peace.
The need to expand government carries the perverted but inherent need to create a pretext. It begins by offering the masses unrealistic promises of health and financial security. It is boosted by building a powerful and sprawling armament sector and army (which combined employ significant chunks of the population) and it is cemented by the creation of entities that travel the globe offering developing countries advise and counsel on the benefits of borrowing artificial money and joining the Western sponsored monetary system.
Taken together over decades, over a century in fact, this dynamic fosters a number of socio/economic characteristics that are all evident today but that most people cannot relate to the original cause.
In over five thousand years of recorded history, there has not been one instance of an artificial monetary system that has lasted as long as our has or that has ended happily.
Money cannot be and must not be cheap. If society surrenders the right to choose what it deems worthy to accept as money, the usurper of that right will always and everywhere end up owning you.
If you think I am talking shite than answer me this.
How many of you reading this post feel comfortable quitting your job safe in the knowledge you will find alternative occupation that will allow you to live comfortably?
Better still. How many of you reading this post feel unhappy in your present employ and feel comfortable that you can quit and find alternative suitable employment?
How many of you work for government, a major bank or a para governmental organization such as the UN or the IMF or USAID?
But more importantly. How many of you feel you can now quit your job and live a less stressful though more frugal life doing the things you’ve always wanted to do but never had the time to?
This is the end of an era and like previous ends to similar monetary fantasies, it will be painful and bloody… and I am not talking twenty years from now.