08-08-2021, 07:43 PM
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: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.
That is truly debatable, if one broads the scope of money to go beyond the concept of debt.
From a mathematical-logistical standpoint: money can be interpreted as a byproduct of an exchange, validated because of a logistical flow between two or more individuals, agents, or agencies; or because of a biunivocal mathematical relation between two or more sets.
In this sense, whenever there is a relation (and not just a barter or mediated exchange), there may be an energetic stamp or token associated with it. In this sense, money can be interpreted as an amount of focused energy.
Because the world government actively acts as the enforcer of the rules of money, its uses are a restraint to the volition of these supply agents (which supply the rules, in this case). Were there freedom in the appliance of such rules (and I'm not referring to bargaining but to social consensus which vary, according to the specific social radius, alongside other intervenient variables such as personal interests, the notion of desire, &c.)
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: It has been shown in time of great crisis that either precious metals or survival skills are valued more than money.
Because the social consensus varies according to the circumstances, the attribution of value or worth also shifts.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: Those crisis time encapsulate metaphorically the state natural of human being out here in the world faced with predators etc.
I wouldn't be so hasty to peremptorily affirm it. The human experiment was a carefully designed one for specific ends; not a mere byproduct of chance. Inasmuch as there are animalistic tendencies within the human experience, these tendencies are very much secondary to the conscious employment of volition of a human-vested individual.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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.
If you restrain someone's volition and leave them little to no choice, can you say they actually had true volition? The very act of forcing one's will upon one another is an act that strips the oppressed volition, thus also diminishing their responsibility in such a process: how can one choose when presented with a superior force?
This is the problem that exists on a social scale: if one enforces one's will upon one another, one may gain more labor and compliance, but one loses the divine free manifestation that a free soul would be able to express, unrestricted and unbound by coercion (in simple terms: "f*** it, why even bother?" mentality).
In such a free state, one's soul is more effective at manifesting the divine within; thus more effectively improving the net total quality state of society.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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.
I appreciate your request and find it even entertaining; considering that we share existence on Earth.
I'll give you the opportunity to think this one out. There are numerous examples of animal societies of volition-based systems; and plenty of examples in intergalactic civilizations.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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.
When a society is timocratic, it is most likely biased towards the attainment of ends through the use of violence and its derivatives, such as the notion of debt. However, money itself, as I demonstrated above, isn't necessarily and indissociably bound to violence.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: Basically money is just a debt record, without enforcing nobody(smart) would try to pay their debts.
Not necessarily. This is a non sequitur fallacy (affirming the consequent).
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: Which everybody does when they purchase something. Usually the service is offered first then the money (debt) is paid after.
A loan isn't the only way to create and circulate money. The world bank's administration is just one of many ways to manage money in today's society, and as I demonstrated by my previous post about the impairing effects of such a narrow vision, it compromises society as a whole, and, therefore, also the ones administering it.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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).
Your inputs and also your bibliography are appreciated.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: « 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. »
This is a Roman social structure, which built its legacy upon the military enforcement and also a clever use and imposition of a legal system, which they deviated from the Greeks, who were also narrow-minded in their view of citizenship; especially in their value attribution to specific demographics. Such could be interpreted as just a rational justification to their ignorance in regards to the multiplicity of cultures and social values of the world at the time.
That, of course, was very likely inherited from the Earth's colonizers' mindset and values.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: « 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. »
The political notion of the necessity — or lack thereof — of a regulating State to manage society is highly debatable.
Considering the religious indoctrination of Catholic and Islamic strands, people have been much more likely to acquiesce or comply with external sources of coercion and management. Therefore, people seem to be more receptive to a governmental controlling unit instead of the added responsibility and accountability that more liberty implies, on a social scale.
However, taxes are only one element of the process of energy accumulating. It leaves several questions still open like the concept of distributive justice, the use of coercion or force to oblige individuals to comply, and the lack of capacity to handle the structure if people have the liberty to choose to participate in such a sociopolitical system or not.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: « 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.
This type of agreement only holds strong because people acquiesce unquestioningly to it, and because of a lack of other viable options in humankind's social life; precisely because of the semi-oligarchy that runs the modern world by now.
Even then, they are impaired by their lack of wisdom and intelligence in their management, whereas the people stripped from their volition have little to no explicit incentives to reach beyond their homeostatic social comfort level, which effectively makes society analogous to that of a really hungry and really slow-moving organism that tends to consume ever-increasing quantities of energy to sustain itself, up to points of social collapse (which then the organism disposes itself of the expendables mentioned earlier) only to repeat cycling through the same pattern; because the rules that the system is based on are purposefully and fundamentally flawed.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: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.
You may seem to be mistaking the consequence for the cause.
To affirm that humankind is undoubtedly self-interest-driven is to exclude every other possibility of cause for their actions (consequences).
Such is a simplistic, black and white worldview, and almost a joke to the myriad of experiences and perceptions that compose the totality of the human experience — which, again, is nothing but a vest.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: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.
Here you seem to be once again mistaking the consequence for the cause; affirming implicitly that if their needs aren't met, then they will necessarily not . . .
Which, again, is affirming the consequent.
I realize that in the above example I have also affirmed that, without showing indisputable proof of the sentence. That is because such proof would imply a superior, unchallengeable truth or path; which is not the case in the Infinity that is the Creation.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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. »
A brilliant phrase, considering the narrow mindset that it is founded on.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: « 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 ?
Simply put, whoever wasn't clever or inside enough the game was constrained to pay, and this is because of a social consensus enforced by the government and, most importantly, agreed on by the populace.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: « 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. »
A flawed moral statement, considering a different view of the energetic logistics of the Universe.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: « 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. »
Absolutely. It's the blame game, appealing to the egoic social construct of individuals to force their compliance. Shame-based tactics are centuries old and were made really popular by some churches.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: « 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.
Once again, it works because Roman justice is still in force nowadays. People apparently haven't thought of something more effective than 'millenia' old rules.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: « 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.
The practical reality is that yes, it is an empire — a rather crumbling one.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: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.
The fact that it is a genuine propelling force does not necessarily imply that it isn't a substitute.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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.
That is very arguable; as perspective — and a certain dose of modesty and prudence — indicate that there are always 'better' and 'worse' vantage points comparing to the current one.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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.
Not necessarily. Once again, beware of absolute truths and intransigences.
Definition of progress
a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) : ADVANCE
Definition of evolution
the gradual development of something over the course of space/time, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) : ADVANCE
Definition of evolution
the gradual development of something over the course of space/time, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
In this sense, progress can be defined as a function of certain ends (which may be destructive or anti-evolutive in regards to simplifying what was complex); whereas evolution can be understood as being a historical record that is also part of a Universal database.
The two terms are similar and have a certain overlapping, but their non-intersecting semantic areas are considerable.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: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.
Crime can be understood, in this example, as any act that is not socially consensued or agreed upon. For instance: in today's society there are explicit rules and boundaries (enforced by the State) and implicit rules and boundaries (subject to the expectations of the social agents in any given environment). Whenever people cross these boundaries, there is the notion of crime.
I consider violence to be a crude and unrefined definition for crime because the use of force with the intention to hurt, damage, or kill, can be actually constructive in a broader perspective. For instance: a muscular injury may occur in a deliberately violent manner, though the muscle tends to super compensate and actually rebuilt itself in a greater way than it was before the injury.
Therefore, violence may serve a constructive or positive goal, rather than a negative one.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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.
That is also debatable and rather simplistic because crimes are very profitable in today's society.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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.
I addressed these points above.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: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 .
That may be so if violence is the only language one knows to achieve one's ends. Considering an Infinite Universe, there are infinite ways to achieve the infinite ends that exist.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: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.
Money can be traded by time, knowledge, attention, entertainment, and anything else.
One may just do the other way around in the mathematical-logistic perspective of money and reverse the process, trading it back for the good or service that it may have originally being traded for in the first place.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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 ?
Supply of, first and foremost, the rules of the game, by the hierarchically topmost agents in this system.
Then, supply of the rate of flow of resources (such as oil) towards certain destinations and in-between specific places, regulated by these supply agents.
Demand of, first and foremost, resources towards certain destinations and in-between specific places.
Because the flow — and its rate — are controlled by the supply agents, they can then induce a false notion of scarcity to manipulate the value attribution of the demanding agents to best benefit them. Were these faucets, so to speak, be opened wide, the notion of scarcity would mingle and dissipate, and the glue that holds society together would be very different than it is now.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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.
That's a very interesting example you put there; it just leaves aside the decision (volition) of the dancer to move its body to whenever rhythm they desire, together with the rhythm, and not subject or vassal to it.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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".
For the simple fact that they are part of a social system whether they are conscious about it or not. As bodies that inhabit the same celestial body (such as a planet or a star), they match a fitting cohabitation constitution; thus they can directly/indirectly affect the social outcome as a whole with their presence/absence, and their actions/lack thereof;
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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.
The focus word here is 'society', not money. Social relations as the primal viewpoint, and not money.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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"
Maybe I don't, maybe I do. Maybe you didn't understand my input, maybe you did.
To think they 'rule' the world is to set the bar of 'ruling' at a very low position.
The amount of inefficiency of the current system management is staggering.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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.
Because people are forced upon by a system that literally coerces them to accept a truly inefficacious political system — the so-called democracy, which is fundamentally flawed — they have no choice in several matters, and thus we come a full circle.
(08-07-2021, 09:14 AM)Desaad khaan Wrote: 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.
Money itself is a tool; and could be a rather effective one, if managed appropriately. However, because of the corruption of the institutions that hold society as it is, money is used as a means to exploit and subjugate people.
Bonus:
(08-08-2021, 05:38 PM)Desaad khaan Wrote: To try and erase whoever wants to state their opinions and truth is to consequently try and erase the Creation itself Ironically this is absolutely and personally what I would've done if I was moderating my forum though (lol) but it isn't my forum
Ironic and inconsistent, considering your rather interesting wolf bet story: why apply different weights/measures when considering a space organized by others (such as this forum) and a hypothetical space organized by yourself (such as your forum), if not for the very same reason you criticized the so-called STO folks (which you seem to view as a group of lukewarm underlings)?
You criticized the forum's attempts to ostracize you as if this is something unwise (which I think it is indeed), yet you claim that this is exactly what you would do in your own place.
Such is very likely a reflection of your inner environment and how you deal with your own personal struggles: by trying to banish them elsewhere.
Isn't it clear how such attitude is naïve, considering the Unity of everything that there is?