- Visto: 1814
Why Debunking Coercive Money is Imperative
By Marc Gauvin (c) 17/3/2014 updaded 25/11/2014
Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution and original link are given.
In order to make current debt accounting manageable, we need current lenders to agree to converting their current contracts from the present unstable growth based paradigm to new Passive BIBO contracts. The fundamental difference between these two paradigms, is that in order to achieve stability of a value measure, money accounting must be passive i.e. free of coercion. So, how do those that believe in the necessity of a coercive "guaranty" as a "safety" measure, give up such measures? And how can those already subject to such coercive obligations, be expected to forfeit similar coercion in support of meeting their contractual obligations?
The all pervasive nature and universal acceptance of the current paradigm means that all commerce and subsequent allocation of real resources, is directly or indirectly influenced by the coercive nature of treating money as a scarce commodity, this in turn puts voluntary adoption of non coercive Passive BIBO Currency in such an environment, at an immediate term competitive disadvantage, as those that are being coerced cannot afford not to resort to similar coercion in order to meet their obligations. In fact, it is precisely for this reason that many alternative currency implementations are only effective as a last almost palliative measure rarely if ever as a preventive measure.
Thus, the reason that Passive BIBO Currency designs such as some mutual credit systems are not as easily accepted as is so called 'bank credit', is because it is PASSIVE value representation, and when implemented in an environment that enforces NON PASSIVE "bank credit" as a sine-qua-non for essentials (taxes, energy, water, etc.), PASSIVE mutual credit is made marginal. It is a proven fact that PASSIVE systems cannot flourish when in competition with NON PASSIVE systems and less so with unstable ones.
The problem I am pointing out in formal terms, is that the solution to money as a stable measure, is contingent on it being a passive system and those who wish to implement passive systems have all the right to do so and to demand the right to a space free of the residual effects of the current non passive standard. It is just like second hand smoke, it is not just that you have the right to smoke, you do, you just don't have the right to affect others when you do so.
Thus and if we are to prevent full degradation of our economies, it is imperative that rational non coercive means of value representation become the predominant norm as immediately as possible. However and for the reasons given above, that would seem highly unlikely if the current paradigm continues to be legally upheld and enforced. It is for this reason that a broad adoption of non coercive value representation free of any direct or indirect influence of any coercive value representation paradigm is imperative, even to the degree of being considered a national security issue of the highest order.
At bibocurrency.com we propose two complementary approaches, first and foremost is pointing out the logical inconsistencies of making money accounting coercive by falsely representing money as a resource of variable commodity value, for more on this see this document. The second approach, uses the first to point out how such contradictions in the de facto and even published industry definition of money, not being imposed by natural law, renders contracts ultimately unenforceable, lest the judiciary risk losing its credibility by acting without the requisite impartiality upon which to establish true objectivity. For more on the legal definition of money see this document and for greater depth on determining the validity of arbitrary (non physical) purely logical systems and the subsequent legal imperatives that arise please see this article.