Deflation Made Simple II
We have now examined two ways to conceive of money-ex-nihilo: one, a title (cambitas-ex-nihilo) to something that does not exist and is clearly unacceptable in a court of common law; and two, a promise to something that may or may not exist (money-ex-nihilo in whatever form), but is actionable in a court of law, if the promise is not fulfilled.
We have also examined two ways to introduce money-ex-nihilo into circulation: one, via cambitas-ex-nihilo whereby the issuer of the money-ex-nihilo spends it into existence; and two, via promeritum-ex-nihilo whereby the use of cambitas-ex-nihilo is lent into existence.
Further, we have examined two ways of lending promeritum-ex-nihilo into existence: one, via a government owned and operated institution such as the late 17th century Caisse des emprunts de Paris; and two, via a privately owned and operated corporation sustained by the state such as the late 17th century Bank of England (BOE).
Clearly there is only one way to consider money-ex-nihilo as legally binding in a common law court — a promise that when kept satisfies both parties, or a promise that when not kept, benefits the one party at the expense of the other.
Further, we have shown that the entire matter of money-ex-nihilo depends on the willingness and/or ability of the state to enforce the promise — no matter who makes and accepts it. If it is the state that makes the promise, then the state is a partner to the promise and cannot serve as an unbiased arbiter in the adjudication were the promise to be disputed. Similarly, if the state facilitates the promises of others through law, rather than serve as a mere adjudicator to the success or failure of their completion, then we are forced to conclude that the state is a primary beneficiary of the arrangement, and it is these state actors, first and foremost, who must be held accountable above all others.
No, we cannot prosecute another’s immorality; we can only admonish and shame it. This said, we can prosecute those who seek to legitimize the immorality of others and their own under the guise of law.
People around the world cry out for social justice and attack the market place as the source of their misery. Their anger is just, but it is unfortunately misplaced. The free and voluntary nature of the market place is an essential good; it is not the source of their malaise. Rather, it is the necessary evil called the state (Images 96, 101-105 and Entries 113 and 158) and we, the people, who have deemed the state a necessary good, who have gone afoul. We have allowed the state — in whatever form — to run roughshod over the free and voluntary nature of the market place in a misguided effort to correct imperfections created by those who have corrupted it. No human institution is perfect, but we must learn to distinguish between imperfection and corruption!
What we have done, in fact, is allowed the state to corroborate with bad actor’s who have sought to undermine the free and voluntary spirit of the market place for their own gain. Among these bad actors there is none worse than those who have sought control of our nation’s money supply and the legal system that sustain the free, just, and voluntary nature of our markets.
We cannot defeat this evil, if we continue to allow it to blindfold us.
Alas, it is not the market place in which entrepreneurs, investors, and workers come voluntarily together to create and exchange new wealth that is evil, rather it is those who would pervert the medium-of-exchange — cambitas (now) and promeritum (future) — and rig the legal system to perpetrate their crime. It is these latter who are making the market place an intolerable venue for free exchange and the common sense satisfaction of voluntary trade that form the basis for all just transactions.
There is no human being that does not have a sense of fair play, and it is a part of our very nature to demand it. Most citizens are even willing to pay taxes and subject themselves to cambitas-per-vim (Entries 109-111, 113-115), if only government would do its job and ensure fair play. But, in this simple, but onerous task, our government is failing us miserably. Rather than defending our property and person against the corrupt, they are corroborating with them to take what our government is suppose to defend!
Our founding fathers understood this matter well, already at the end of the 18th century, when they placed themselves and their fortunes at risk, signed the Declaration of Independence, and told King George III and the British Parliament to stand down. Our founding fathers stated:
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that [hu]mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
1776. Declaration of Independence, §2
Some 246 years have passed since then, and we are once more at the precipice of absolute despotism. Washington, D.C. is no more responsive to our needs at the beginning of the 21st century than was King George and the British Parliament to our needs toward the end of the 18th century.
The value of the US dollar has depreciated in value by some 97 percent since 1913, and what little value it has left on the world stage is under serious threat. At some point it will be worth nothing, if we continue down our current path. This is an indisputable trend that has repeated itself time and time again throughout the history of the Western world.
The theft in which our government is engaged is both blatant and relentless. It must stop, for it is destroying the spirit of the very marketplace and society that once made us great.
In liberty, or not at all,
Roddy A. Stegemann, First Hill, Seattle 98104