The Argument Against Money, Even BitCoin

Click here to download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

Before money, people had to keep their promises or trade on good faith. That is to say, that you gave something of yours to another person, because you trusted that other person to give you of his own, equally.

"At the potlatch, gifts repay guests for witnessing the week's events
with nonstop feasting, singing, dancing, and gift-giving."
- Shirley Collingridge, Wordsmith

Whenever trust is lost, the only way to have trade is by force and violence. Money is an intermediary to the threat of violence. When you cannot trade by trust, but you are forced to trade regardless, by other parties, then one way to mask the actual violence inherent to the trade, is by using an actual item that represents the promise of trading back to you goods of equal value.

Whether it is a sack of wheat, the ancient Babylonian Shekel, or a coin or a note, as we know money today, it is always a promise that disagreement to do trade will lead to violence. But, it is also an empty promise, because the value of the money is always decreed by those who rule by violence. They change the value of the currency according to their own needs. Even a sack of wheat, can in one hand represent life itself, and in another hand, represent nothing, at all.

In other words, say you give me an apple, and I give you a note that says that I must give you something of unknown value back, for that note. Why would you accept such a blatant scam? Because the other party forces you to do so, using violence and the threat of violence. The only value remaining to you is the trade that you can do with others, who are under the same threat and have the same-styled notes of promise that you do.

Digital currencies are no different. They are but a meaningless promise given by strangers and those who have little to no interest in the other party; you. If I know and trust another person online, then I will feel comfortable giving them of my own; knowing that they are likely to do the same for me. However, when I deal without having trust (personally, or by proxy of another trustee), then I know not that I will ever get the value of my goods back to me, in any shape or form.

This argument, claiming that money is nothing but a weapon, may not seem obvious, at first. Ask yourself the following questions:

• Where does money come from? Generally, to everyone, and personally, to you.
• What do people do, when they have no money?
• What is the history of the value of currencies?
• Are there people who live without money, and if so, how do they do trade?
• Do most people actually agree on the value of goods?

Even the answers to these questions, should be enough to see that money is not the supposed "tool and method" of trade that many claim it to be.

How To Upload Your Podcast?

Click here to download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

This is more of question rather than an answer; although, I do deliver an answer, as well.

I was very disappointed to see that Google, while providing blogging, website and online profile services (for free), they do not provide podcasting services - or rather MP3 (audio) file hosting services.

Music full of vitamins and minerals!

I searched around and found a website that, while it does not seem entirely reliable in the long run, does work and work well. Kiwi6 lets us upload and share audio with others, with direct links. It seems to be mostly used by independent artists that record music and songs. They have some nice playlists to play while surfing or gaming.

If you know of other reliable hosts for audio files, or even specifically for podcasts, which let us direct link to the files, then please comment!

Responsibility VS Ownership !

All human conflict derives from the ideological conflict between responsibility and ownership.

Responsibility is the measure of how much a person is willing to give, time or resources or even risk, in order to support his ideals. A natural example is that of investing in a child. The child is given his needs from the parents, because the parent idealizes, to a degree, the importance of their child.

Ownership is the attempt to control the ideas of other people. In order for a person to own anything, they must convince others that they (the others) have no power, over the choices of the owner, in regard to the owned object. For example, the only way in which I can own an apple, is if other people accept that my choices about the apple are superior to their own ideas about the apple.

It is possible for both ideologies to overlap:
1. Own & take responsibility, over something.
2. Not own, but take responsibility, over something.
3. Own, but not take responsibility, over something.
4. Not own & not take responsibility, over something.

The greatest conflict of interests is when one person or group decides to take responsibility without ownership, while another person or group decides to take ownership without responsibility. I first tackled this issue over at the FDR forums, here:
http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/36950-responsibility-versus-ownership/

I propose that this is best solved by acknowledging that responsibility is a higher ideal than ownership. I do not propose, however, that ownership does not have a right to exist. Only, that in the case of dispute, that side which proves the need for taking responsibility, must be allowed priority, over the side that claims ownership.

First, we recognize the fact that being the owner of something, for example a tree, does not mean that you would always have all the rights to it. If the owner does not take care of the tree, so that it is rotting and might fall on others, then it is fair for others to take responsibility, and cut the tree down, for their own safety. This is in the case of the owner not doing so, beforehand.

Second, we realize that it is not enough to simply disagree with the owner's opinions, but that actual proof is required, for intervention. If it is not evident why intervention must be required, then no intervention should exist! When an owner and an interventor (someone who wants to take responsibility) go to court, in order to resolve a dispute, then it is up to social rule to dictate the result.

This is why we talk and argue our ideas. So, that we can imply what is right and what is wrong, in society, as a whole, and so be able to trust our fellow peoples' decisions.

Eventually, I wanted Stefan Molyneux's opinion in the matter; him being a person I share a lot of views in common with and who is able to debate well, and so sent him an email and received this response:

"I think that everything that is enforced rather than inflicted is superior, [so] I think we agree."

I conclude that he, and many on the forums, sum this idea into, 'we either have a contract or we don't.'

This is my final conclusion, which I consider the most practical:

In order to enforce conflict resolutions, we must decide which person has the higher moral ground. The ideals of the Non-Aggression Principle and Self-Ownership are insufficient for the resolution of conflicts, without proper investigation into the facts and nature of each conflict.

Only when there is no doubt that one side has a clearly higher moral position, over the other, then that side must enjoy the support of the community, as a whole, and of us as individuals, in private.

Conversations With An Anarchist Soldier 2 - Far From The Border

This post is the second part to Conversations With An Anarchist Soldier. If you have not read it yet, then please do so, even briefly. Otherwise, this post will not make much sense to you.

My mom called a friend, who knew a rather high ranking officer, in one of the bigger military bases in central Israel. He gave me a quick interview, a private one, and let me join his little section of army life.

Today, I would refer to the job I got as "assistant clerk to officer of education and parties." It sounds like a fun title, but I can guarantee that it was nothing more than pushing papers and missing on sleeping and living time. Basically, I was drafted to co-clerk the desk of some less-important officer.

Being a computers specialist by hobby, I volunteered to do technical jobs for them. I even got the rare opportunity to work on their public-relations website, which entertained a well known actress, commonly known as "Roni Superstar." Most folk do not believe this real story, anyway, but I can testify to spending alone time with her. She was good company. :-D And I will say no more.

My five(5) month service as a clerk was heavy on my conscious. I went for a jog almost daily, just to keep my energy levels up. Waking up in the early mornings, sometimes near dawn, just to serve a meaningless purpose in the army, was far from fulfillment. I was forced to shave and cut my hair short. I wore the same green uniform that everybody else wore. It felt like pretending to be real soldiers. The army is more than just a duty in Israel. It is an ideology and a social trend. If you are not in, then you are out.

Finally, I could not ignore the fact that I was wasting my life away, due to cowardice and conformity. I stopped forcing my superfluous exercise regime and went to speak with the army shrink. That is how most people get out of the army. You simply insist that you are not suitable for service, psychologically. It has become a sort of art form in itself, in our country; but, in reality it is often just being extremely real and open in front of that stranger, who calls himself a doctor. That is what I did, and after a month's time, he accepted that I was not suitable to be a soldier boy.

It is true, you know. I am far from suitable to serve under others. I am a rebel by nature; unable to live a lie and treat life as if it were a game. I am made of what all entrepreneurs and adventurers are made from: Guts!

I imagine that most who fantasize about army life, dream about intense combat situations of Bad versus Good. Maybe, even those who would like to support the soldiers as clerks, dream of a job full of justice and loyalty. Those things, whether you are an infantry soldier or a clerk, are very rare in reality. Most of the work is just dragging yourself daily doing menial chores. It is cheap and socially popular slavery in the name of security. Nothing less, nothing more. There are no heroes in the military; only regular occupied people.

So, while I do admit to meeting some very interesting people during my service, none of whom have I kept contact with, this confession is as accurate as I can write. My purpose in sharing this with my readers is to show another perspective on life. My own unique perspective. It is why I write this blog.

These couple of posts are very special to me, because I had not planned on sharing my rather miserable history in the army; it is not something to recollect without discomfort. Then, in doing so, I have made this blog - and you my readers - that much more part of who I am.

Please, feel free to ask me questions in the comments! I will do my best to expand on all these events.