08-07-2021, 09:14 AM
DISCLAIMER: I want to state that by no means the post below is an attempt to spread or promote any philosophies. I am just expressing my distortions towards "my" truth which everybody has (ALL). By no mean I am responsible on how the reader respond, I leave to interpretation of each individual to respond by any range of emotions they possess fear/love and I accept them very well 
etc.
The post below is an opportunity for those who follow love to accept all and for me to accept self we are accepting indeed, it serves both adept as it accelerates each toward his/her polarities, evolution, self knowing and self accepting Now if the reader still think that I might *exhibit elements of deception and manipulative thinking *generate fear *reject or discourage universal love *encourage or promote control of self or others which is his/her own interpretation uniquely his/hers of my truth, I will ask him/her not to read the post below. If the reader is understanding, accepting and wise on his evolutionary path may he read with an open heart and not judge. Thank you(That was a long "damn" disclaimer
Now we'll go through a long introduction of what money actually is in a condensed version (non ironic irony)
« One of the first things General Gallieni did after “pacification,” as they liked to call it then, was to impose heavy taxes on the Malagasy population, in part so they could reimburse the costs of having been invaded, but also, since French colonies were supposed to be fiscally self-supporting, to defray the costs of building the railroads, highways, bridges, plantations, and so forth that the French regime wished to build. Malagasy taxpayers were never asked whether they wanted these railroads, highways, bridges, and plantations, or allowed much input into where and how they were built.1 To the contrary: over the next half century, the French army and police slaughtered quite a number of Malagasy who objected too strongly to the arrangement (upwards of half a million, by some reports, during one revolt in 1947). It’s not as if Madagascar has ever done any comparable damage to France. Despite this, from the beginning, the Malagasy people were told they owed France money, and to this day, the Malagasy people are still held to owe France money, and the rest of the world accepts the justice of this arrangement. »
From: David Graeber. « Debt. » Apple Books.
Basically money is just a debt record, without enforcing nobody(smart) would try to pay their debts. Which everybody does when they purchase something. Usually the service is offered first then the money (debt) is paid after. Then the book go much more in depth with the subject.
According to me it is much more likely that money has been imposed at first due to the fact that it is a portable unit of debt, this would've eased many advanced government cost of operation, cost (in time etc).
« The State, therefore, comes in first of all as the authority of law which enforces the payment of the thing which corresponds to the name or description in the contract. »
« The real weak link in state-credit theories of money was always the element of taxes. It is one thing to explain why early states demanded taxes (in order to create markets.) It’s another to ask “by what right?” Assuming that early rulers were not simply thugs, and that taxes were not simply extortion—and no Credit Theorist, to my knowledge, took such a cynical view even of early government—one must ask how they justified this sort of thing. »
« Nowadays, we all think we know the answer to this question. We pay our taxes so that the government can provide us with services. This starts with security services—military protection being, often, about the only service some early states were really able to provide. By now, of course, the government provides all sorts of things. All of this is said to go back to some sort of original “social contract” that everyone somehow agreed on, though no one really knows exactly when or by whom, or why we should be bound by the decisions of distant ancestor tors on this one matter when we don’t feel particularly bound by the decisions of our distant ancestors on anything else. All of this makes sense if you assume that markets come before governments, but the whole argument totters quickly once you realize that they don’t. »
David Graeber. « Debt. » Apple Books.
Now to continue with what money is.
« If you owe the bank a hundred thousand dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank a hundred million dollars, you own the bank. »
« 70s oil crisis, OPEC countries ended up pouring so much of their newfound riches into Western banks that the banks couldn’t figure out where to invest the money; how Citibank and Chase therefore began sending agents around the world trying to convince Third World dictators and politicians to take out loans (at the time, this was called “go-go banking”); how they started out at extremely low rates of interest that almost immediately skyrocketed to 20 percent or so due to tight U.S. money policies in the early ‘80s; how, during the ’80s and ’90s, this led to the Third World debt crisis; »
« I could have begun by explaining how these loans had originally been taken out by unelected dictators who placed most of it directly in their Swiss bank accounts, and ask her to contemplate the justice of insisting that the lenders be repaid, not by the dictator, or even by his cronies, but by literally taking food from the mouths of hungry children »
« But there was a more basic problem: the very assumption that debts have to be repaid. »
David Graeber. « Debt. » Apple Books.
Bear with me. In the 2008 subprime crisis who were the individuals that were "constrained" to pay and who weren't ?
« Surely one has to pay one’s debts.”
The reason it’s so powerful is that it’s not actually an economic statement: it’s a moral statement. »
« If history shows anything, it is that there’s no better way to justify relations founded on violence, to make such relations seem moral, than by reframing them in the language of debt(Money)—above all, because it immediately makes it seem that it’s the victim who’s doing something wrong. Mafiosi understand this. So do the commanders of conquering armies. For thousands of years, violent men have been able to tell their victims that those victims owe them something. If nothing else, they “owe them their lives” (a telling phrase) because they haven’t been killed. »
« But debt is not just victor’s justice; it can also be a way of punishing winners who weren’t supposed to win. The most spectacular example of this is the history of the Republic of Haiti—the first poor country to be placed in permanent debt peonage. Haiti was a nation founded by former plantation slaves who had the temerity not only to rise up in rebellion, amidst grand declarations of universal rights and freedoms, but to defeat Napoleon’s armies sent to return them to bondage. France immediately insisted that the new republic owed it 150 million francs in damages for the expropriated plantations, as well as the expenses of outfitting the failed military expeditions, and all other nations, including the United States, agreed to impose an embargo on the country until it was paid. The sum was intentionally impossible (equivalent to about 18 billion dollars), and the resultant embargo ensured that the name “Haiti” has been a synonym for debt, poverty, and human misery ever since. »
David Graeber. « Debt. » Apple Books.
Permanent debt peonage. Outside of the ruling class and extremely smart individual everyone who uses money is "constrained" true clever mindtrick to this permanent debt peonage.
« Starting in the 1980s, the United States, which insisted on strict terms for the repayment of Third World debt, itself accrued debts that easily dwarfed those of the entire Third World combined—mainly fueled by military spending. The U.S. foreign debt, though, takes the form of treasury bonds held by institutional investors in countries (Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the Gulf States) that are in most cases, effectively, U.S. military protectorates, most covered in U.S. bases full of arms and equipment paid for with that very deficit spending. This has changed a little now that China has gotten in on the game (China is a special case, for reasons that will be explained later), but not very much—even China finds that the fact it holds so many U.S. treasury bonds makes it to some degree beholden to U.S. interests, rather than the other way around.
So what is the status of all this money continually being funneled into the U.S. treasury? Are these loans? Or is it tribute? »
Why is that the US has no pressure (constraint) to pay his debt " in countries (Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the Gulf States) that are in most cases, effectively, U.S. military protectorates, most covered in U.S. bases full of arms and equipment paid for with that very deficit spending" summary violence. If the people after the 2008 crisis went directly for the "bankers" they would've been stopped by the police or the army.
U.S. bases full of arms and equipment paid for with that very deficit spending this will be equivalent in 2008 crisis of keeping the very banks that f***ed people lives afloat with the very taxes paid by those people. (Keep this word taxes in mind)
« So what is the status of all this money continually being funneled into the U.S. treasury? Are these loans? Or is it tribute? In the past, military powers that maintained hundreds of military bases outside their own home territory were ordinarily referred to as “empires,” and empires regularly demanded tribute from subject peoples. The U.S. government, of course, insists that it is not an empire—but one could easily make a case that the only reason it insists on treating these payments as “loans” and not as “tribute” is precisely to deny the reality of what’s going on. »
« What is the difference between a gangster pulling out a gun and demanding you give him a thousand dollars of “protection money,” and that same gangster pulling out a gun and demanding you provide him with a thousand-dollar “loan”? In most ways, obviously, nothing. But in certain ways there is a difference. As in the case of the U.S. debt to Korea or Japan, were the balance of power at any point to shift, were America to lose its military supremacy, were the gangster to lose his henchmen, that “loan” might start being treated very differently. »
were America to lose its military supremacy, were the gangster to lose his henchmen, that “loan” might start being treated very differently. This is to show the close relationship between the ability to coerce and money.
« By the same token, for the last five thousand years, with remarkable regularity, popular insurrections have begun the same way: with the ritual destruction of the debt records—tablets, papyri, ledgers, whatever form they might have taken in any particular time and place. (After that, rebels usually go after the records of landholding and tax assessments. »
David Graeber. « Debt. » Apple Books.
Because it gives a huge window of opportunity to intelligent/smart individuals, by intelligent I don't mean intellectual. Hence the disruption occurring in this type of system is much more "pronounced and impactful" just like an "oasis in a desert" accelerating the leap forward at each breaks. In order to ascend in the monetary world you have to be the best at least in 4 different areas, spiritual, politic, scientific, wisdom/warfare etc. whereas in a non monetary based system you'll need to be very good at only one. This is like training in hell, wherever you go next will be easy.
Where I agree with you is that those smart individuals(few) then are still bound to maintain the status quo in their turns and that money wasn't made with evolution as it's priority but status quo.
NB: It is evolution indeed but not always "progress" as you implied, I can give that to you because it is just a syntactic error. Either it is progress or regress, you can't say it is evolution and progress, because progress or regress already imply to an evolution.
The very existence of money based system foster less "crimes" because it benefits the ruling class. Heavy resources are poured in order to achieve less crime. You need slaves to work for you not to kill each other, which explain why our society paradoxically is the first one to be so eager to fight "hate and violence" on its boarder much more so than ever before, thanks to the woke-ism. If USA wasn't the Juggernaut it is now, there would have been more violence compounded in its territory than now. Unless you show me a system that isn't money that worked.
Second of all, money can be a lesser bound to slavery but can't be a lesser bound on debt because it is debt itself, as demonstrated by my previous posts.
Although I understand you, I think you aren't using the words supply and demand correctly in that post, using that will imply treating "money" as a good, which it isn't. Even if you don't agree with my definition of money as debt "record" we can't simply treat money as a good because if we do so the next logical question would be - What mean of exchange do we use to trade that good ? Other than money itself.
One of the example where we can use money as a commodity would be on the foreign exchange markets which supply and demand aren't enforced by the agents that regulate supply rather by the "trade" of each individuals involved in their respective currencies intra-trading. This is where my understanding ends. Because except that my genuine question that I hope you answer to remains supply of what, demand of what ?
the agents that regulate supply and enforce demand[/i] are thus indirectly subject to their own social management This is as logical as - agents that regulate "reincarnation" (STO) are subject to their own rules, they aren't free from their regulations or again we can say that they are slave to their own regulation as a great dancer is a slave to the rhythm.
mismatch of their social accountability (to society as a whole)------ Why would they be accountable to society when their goal is actually less or no accountability at all "unconstraint". this follow up your next sentence which is ----- they are both the most impairing and the most impaired agents of a monetary-based society.--- No they aren't impairing to money, the proof is that money is the primordial system on which human society exist, simply put money rules the world. If they were impairing (or impaired by) money, money would've not been able to "rule the world". So they are effective at what they do maybe you just don't understand their goal, you can follow the trails or establish a diagnostic on their effect but you can't tell the goal of those "agents"
NB: Although some of your conclusions were correct I found your premises and (some) semantics flawed that's why I expanded on those parts of your post. I think a truly liberal (own volition) system would be for tax payers to choose individually where their money goes, with the bitcoin for example that would be possible... The fact is you can be against wars but the same tax you pay is used to invest in, wars etc. Now I'll argue with you that I find that type of (monetary)system much more benefiting toward progression but this is my own opinion. I am still waiting for a concrete example of an alternative system (that works).
For the heavy reference on David graeber I was just "lazy" to find heterogeneous sources.
etc.Quote:attempt to discuss, share, and examine this category of information—whether anecdotal or abstract—with the aim of understanding it in terms of spiritual evolution, polarity, self-knowing, and self-accepting
The post below is an opportunity for those who follow love to accept all and for me to accept self we are accepting indeed, it serves both adept as it accelerates each toward his/her polarities, evolution, self knowing and self accepting Now if the reader still think that I might *exhibit elements of deception and manipulative thinking *generate fear *reject or discourage universal love *encourage or promote control of self or others which is his/her own interpretation uniquely his/hers of my truth, I will ask him/her not to read the post below. If the reader is understanding, accepting and wise on his evolutionary path may he read with an open heart and not judge. Thank you(That was a long "damn" disclaimer
Quote:There are organized social systems that base their functioning solely upon [b]volition and the inner pulls of each and every member of it as a whole[/b]Money can't start by free will, it is enforced by a form of violence I must admit first (police, military etc) without it money won't exist. It has been shown in time of great crisis that either precious metals or survival skills are valued more than money. Those crisis time encapsulate metaphorically the state natural of human being out here in the world faced with predators etc. That is even more true when to accept money out their own volition its users would've first to understand its intricacies before accepting it, which they don't. How can somebody buy a car without knowing what it does either he has been scammed or forced to buy. There is a great anthropological book that further demonstrate this. I agree with you that money isn't a system based solely on volition now show me a system that is and that works on a large scale.
Now we'll go through a long introduction of what money actually is in a condensed version (non ironic irony)
« One of the first things General Gallieni did after “pacification,” as they liked to call it then, was to impose heavy taxes on the Malagasy population, in part so they could reimburse the costs of having been invaded, but also, since French colonies were supposed to be fiscally self-supporting, to defray the costs of building the railroads, highways, bridges, plantations, and so forth that the French regime wished to build. Malagasy taxpayers were never asked whether they wanted these railroads, highways, bridges, and plantations, or allowed much input into where and how they were built.1 To the contrary: over the next half century, the French army and police slaughtered quite a number of Malagasy who objected too strongly to the arrangement (upwards of half a million, by some reports, during one revolt in 1947). It’s not as if Madagascar has ever done any comparable damage to France. Despite this, from the beginning, the Malagasy people were told they owed France money, and to this day, the Malagasy people are still held to owe France money, and the rest of the world accepts the justice of this arrangement. »
From: David Graeber. « Debt. » Apple Books.
Basically money is just a debt record, without enforcing nobody(smart) would try to pay their debts. Which everybody does when they purchase something. Usually the service is offered first then the money (debt) is paid after. Then the book go much more in depth with the subject.
According to me it is much more likely that money has been imposed at first due to the fact that it is a portable unit of debt, this would've eased many advanced government cost of operation, cost (in time etc).
« The State, therefore, comes in first of all as the authority of law which enforces the payment of the thing which corresponds to the name or description in the contract. »
« The real weak link in state-credit theories of money was always the element of taxes. It is one thing to explain why early states demanded taxes (in order to create markets.) It’s another to ask “by what right?” Assuming that early rulers were not simply thugs, and that taxes were not simply extortion—and no Credit Theorist, to my knowledge, took such a cynical view even of early government—one must ask how they justified this sort of thing. »
« Nowadays, we all think we know the answer to this question. We pay our taxes so that the government can provide us with services. This starts with security services—military protection being, often, about the only service some early states were really able to provide. By now, of course, the government provides all sorts of things. All of this is said to go back to some sort of original “social contract” that everyone somehow agreed on, though no one really knows exactly when or by whom, or why we should be bound by the decisions of distant ancestor tors on this one matter when we don’t feel particularly bound by the decisions of our distant ancestors on anything else. All of this makes sense if you assume that markets come before governments, but the whole argument totters quickly once you realize that they don’t. »
David Graeber. « Debt. » Apple Books.
Quote:In this case, the propeller of progress and evolution of such societies is volition itself, and the ends that it seeks are consonant to each individual innermost desires at any point, which are a reflection of each individual spiritual progression at any point. As simplified and reduced examples: a caretaker would feel the desire to take care of other beings because it would benefit their spiritual evolution the most at that particular time; a builder to build, and so on.No things of volition would necessitate the use of violence in order to exist, which again money does, I agree with you. The ammo of every country has been used against its own population when compounded than against an ext. enemy (invaders etc.), by trying to undermine revolutions, rebellion or any kind of mutineers, true. Now for the rest of your example, it is so simplistically put and brush off the fact that even though human are self-interest driven(care taker want to take care etc), the problem now isn't the drive itself but the survival that come with it, you seem to go past the necessities (resources protection against predators etc) of a human life.
Quote:Such unconstrained individuals would effortlessly gravitate towards their most needed aspects of progression, which would be harmonious and beneficial to themselves and to society as a whole at the same time.This works only if their needs are met.
Now to continue with what money is.
« If you owe the bank a hundred thousand dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank a hundred million dollars, you own the bank. »
« 70s oil crisis, OPEC countries ended up pouring so much of their newfound riches into Western banks that the banks couldn’t figure out where to invest the money; how Citibank and Chase therefore began sending agents around the world trying to convince Third World dictators and politicians to take out loans (at the time, this was called “go-go banking”); how they started out at extremely low rates of interest that almost immediately skyrocketed to 20 percent or so due to tight U.S. money policies in the early ‘80s; how, during the ’80s and ’90s, this led to the Third World debt crisis; »
« I could have begun by explaining how these loans had originally been taken out by unelected dictators who placed most of it directly in their Swiss bank accounts, and ask her to contemplate the justice of insisting that the lenders be repaid, not by the dictator, or even by his cronies, but by literally taking food from the mouths of hungry children »
« But there was a more basic problem: the very assumption that debts have to be repaid. »
David Graeber. « Debt. » Apple Books.
Bear with me. In the 2008 subprime crisis who were the individuals that were "constrained" to pay and who weren't ?
« Surely one has to pay one’s debts.”
The reason it’s so powerful is that it’s not actually an economic statement: it’s a moral statement. »
« If history shows anything, it is that there’s no better way to justify relations founded on violence, to make such relations seem moral, than by reframing them in the language of debt(Money)—above all, because it immediately makes it seem that it’s the victim who’s doing something wrong. Mafiosi understand this. So do the commanders of conquering armies. For thousands of years, violent men have been able to tell their victims that those victims owe them something. If nothing else, they “owe them their lives” (a telling phrase) because they haven’t been killed. »
« But debt is not just victor’s justice; it can also be a way of punishing winners who weren’t supposed to win. The most spectacular example of this is the history of the Republic of Haiti—the first poor country to be placed in permanent debt peonage. Haiti was a nation founded by former plantation slaves who had the temerity not only to rise up in rebellion, amidst grand declarations of universal rights and freedoms, but to defeat Napoleon’s armies sent to return them to bondage. France immediately insisted that the new republic owed it 150 million francs in damages for the expropriated plantations, as well as the expenses of outfitting the failed military expeditions, and all other nations, including the United States, agreed to impose an embargo on the country until it was paid. The sum was intentionally impossible (equivalent to about 18 billion dollars), and the resultant embargo ensured that the name “Haiti” has been a synonym for debt, poverty, and human misery ever since. »
David Graeber. « Debt. » Apple Books.
Permanent debt peonage. Outside of the ruling class and extremely smart individual everyone who uses money is "constrained" true clever mindtrick to this permanent debt peonage.
« Starting in the 1980s, the United States, which insisted on strict terms for the repayment of Third World debt, itself accrued debts that easily dwarfed those of the entire Third World combined—mainly fueled by military spending. The U.S. foreign debt, though, takes the form of treasury bonds held by institutional investors in countries (Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the Gulf States) that are in most cases, effectively, U.S. military protectorates, most covered in U.S. bases full of arms and equipment paid for with that very deficit spending. This has changed a little now that China has gotten in on the game (China is a special case, for reasons that will be explained later), but not very much—even China finds that the fact it holds so many U.S. treasury bonds makes it to some degree beholden to U.S. interests, rather than the other way around.
So what is the status of all this money continually being funneled into the U.S. treasury? Are these loans? Or is it tribute? »
Why is that the US has no pressure (constraint) to pay his debt " in countries (Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the Gulf States) that are in most cases, effectively, U.S. military protectorates, most covered in U.S. bases full of arms and equipment paid for with that very deficit spending" summary violence. If the people after the 2008 crisis went directly for the "bankers" they would've been stopped by the police or the army.
U.S. bases full of arms and equipment paid for with that very deficit spending this will be equivalent in 2008 crisis of keeping the very banks that f***ed people lives afloat with the very taxes paid by those people. (Keep this word taxes in mind)
« So what is the status of all this money continually being funneled into the U.S. treasury? Are these loans? Or is it tribute? In the past, military powers that maintained hundreds of military bases outside their own home territory were ordinarily referred to as “empires,” and empires regularly demanded tribute from subject peoples. The U.S. government, of course, insists that it is not an empire—but one could easily make a case that the only reason it insists on treating these payments as “loans” and not as “tribute” is precisely to deny the reality of what’s going on. »
« What is the difference between a gangster pulling out a gun and demanding you give him a thousand dollars of “protection money,” and that same gangster pulling out a gun and demanding you provide him with a thousand-dollar “loan”? In most ways, obviously, nothing. But in certain ways there is a difference. As in the case of the U.S. debt to Korea or Japan, were the balance of power at any point to shift, were America to lose its military supremacy, were the gangster to lose his henchmen, that “loan” might start being treated very differently. »
were America to lose its military supremacy, were the gangster to lose his henchmen, that “loan” might start being treated very differently. This is to show the close relationship between the ability to coerce and money.
« By the same token, for the last five thousand years, with remarkable regularity, popular insurrections have begun the same way: with the ritual destruction of the debt records—tablets, papyri, ledgers, whatever form they might have taken in any particular time and place. (After that, rebels usually go after the records of landholding and tax assessments. »
David Graeber. « Debt. » Apple Books.
Quote:The monetary system functions as a substitute for the propelling force of society towards progress and evolution while, at the same time, restraining — throughout the replacement of the paramount societal importance of each member's own volition and spiritual inclinations — the liberty of individuals in a monetary society.. The monetary system functions as a substitute for the propelling force of society towards progress - I agree on the conclusion but disagree on the premise and the semantic. The monetary system serves the status quo it just so happen that there are smart individuals who can take advantages of that system, with that said, monetary sys. become a genuine propelling force toward progress not just a substitute.
Because it gives a huge window of opportunity to intelligent/smart individuals, by intelligent I don't mean intellectual. Hence the disruption occurring in this type of system is much more "pronounced and impactful" just like an "oasis in a desert" accelerating the leap forward at each breaks. In order to ascend in the monetary world you have to be the best at least in 4 different areas, spiritual, politic, scientific, wisdom/warfare etc. whereas in a non monetary based system you'll need to be very good at only one. This is like training in hell, wherever you go next will be easy.
Where I agree with you is that those smart individuals(few) then are still bound to maintain the status quo in their turns and that money wasn't made with evolution as it's priority but status quo.
NB: It is evolution indeed but not always "progress" as you implied, I can give that to you because it is just a syntactic error. Either it is progress or regress, you can't say it is evolution and progress, because progress or regress already imply to an evolution.
Quote:This system's restraints set a lower bound of slavery and debt, thus imposing a predictable and crude survival mode, which fosters crime and punishment, which in turn begets more crime, more punishment, and so on.First of all the word crimes is to broad, what do you imply by that ? Rather than using "crime" which depends nowadays on the institutions where those said crimes are done (not every state punish the same crime, some says majority 18 other 21 etc.) I'll use crime as a stubtitue for violence.
The very existence of money based system foster less "crimes" because it benefits the ruling class. Heavy resources are poured in order to achieve less crime. You need slaves to work for you not to kill each other, which explain why our society paradoxically is the first one to be so eager to fight "hate and violence" on its boarder much more so than ever before, thanks to the woke-ism. If USA wasn't the Juggernaut it is now, there would have been more violence compounded in its territory than now. Unless you show me a system that isn't money that worked.
Second of all, money can be a lesser bound to slavery but can't be a lesser bound on debt because it is debt itself, as demonstrated by my previous posts.
Quote:Because money is the toll to access most of the resources of a monetary-based society, and because the agents that regulate supply also fabricate and enforce upon society the demands that are most convenient to the supply agents' agenda (which, in turn, perpetrates maximum enslavement for agents in the sole condition of demanding), the progress of a monetary-based society is limited to the extent of the desires of these supply agents, while the destinies of the demanding individuals or vassals are always subject to an agenda that puts them as expendables for the ongoing functioning of a monetary-based society.You are correct and I'll go further saying that to access most of resources in a non monetary based society would just require raw violence applied fully, so we still comeback full circle .
Quote:Furthermore, because the agents that regulate the supply do so from a place of volition, and because the volition of every other individual is, directly and indirectly, subject to theirs, the net total volition of a monetary-based society is reduced to the supply agents'. This effectively slows the maximum progress and evolution potential of a monetary-based society as a whole.You are correct
Quote:Because demand is enforced by the agents that regulate supply, the individuals that demand are conditioned to repeat what is enforced upon them. However, because supply is fueled and feedbacked by demand, the loss of volition of the demanding individuals compromise the foundations of a monetary-based society in a roundabout way: the agents that regulate supply and enforce demand are thus indirectly subject to their own social management, and because of their social alienation and the mismatch of their social accountability (to society as a whole) and the extent of their wisdom, they are both the most impairing and the most impaired agents of a monetary-based society.
Although I understand you, I think you aren't using the words supply and demand correctly in that post, using that will imply treating "money" as a good, which it isn't. Even if you don't agree with my definition of money as debt "record" we can't simply treat money as a good because if we do so the next logical question would be - What mean of exchange do we use to trade that good ? Other than money itself.
One of the example where we can use money as a commodity would be on the foreign exchange markets which supply and demand aren't enforced by the agents that regulate supply rather by the "trade" of each individuals involved in their respective currencies intra-trading. This is where my understanding ends. Because except that my genuine question that I hope you answer to remains supply of what, demand of what ?
the agents that regulate supply and enforce demand[/i] are thus indirectly subject to their own social management This is as logical as - agents that regulate "reincarnation" (STO) are subject to their own rules, they aren't free from their regulations or again we can say that they are slave to their own regulation as a great dancer is a slave to the rhythm.
mismatch of their social accountability (to society as a whole)------ Why would they be accountable to society when their goal is actually less or no accountability at all "unconstraint". this follow up your next sentence which is ----- they are both the most impairing and the most impaired agents of a monetary-based society.--- No they aren't impairing to money, the proof is that money is the primordial system on which human society exist, simply put money rules the world. If they were impairing (or impaired by) money, money would've not been able to "rule the world". So they are effective at what they do maybe you just don't understand their goal, you can follow the trails or establish a diagnostic on their effect but you can't tell the goal of those "agents"
NB: Although some of your conclusions were correct I found your premises and (some) semantics flawed that's why I expanded on those parts of your post. I think a truly liberal (own volition) system would be for tax payers to choose individually where their money goes, with the bitcoin for example that would be possible... The fact is you can be against wars but the same tax you pay is used to invest in, wars etc. Now I'll argue with you that I find that type of (monetary)system much more benefiting toward progression but this is my own opinion. I am still waiting for a concrete example of an alternative system (that works).
For the heavy reference on David graeber I was just "lazy" to find heterogeneous sources.