Libertarians going nuts and threatening violence

[reverendjeremiah]

You cannot abolish money like that.

If I ever get into the position to do it, I will do it. Its not my fault that you have no will to power.

What, are we going to go back to the barter system?

Thats one of many, MANY systems that can be used instead of money.

That's not even present in the fallout universe.

? Is that a game?

---

--then again, I will never be in the position to ban money..so the point is moot.

[kılıç_mehmet]

You cannot abolish money like that.

If I ever get into the position to do it, I will do it. Its not my fault that you have no will to power.

What, are we going to go back to the barter system?

Thats one of many, MANY systems that can be used instead of money.

That's not even present in the fallout universe.

? Is that a game?

---

--then again, I will never be in the position to ban money..so the point is moot.

Yes, so what kind of a system do you propose instead of money?
And again, I must remind you, that goods and services cannot be given away for free unless they are in such an abundance as to make them financially worthless.

[reverendjeremiah]

Heres a nice list for you to browse through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_economics

Other than that, the topic is libertarians on youtube making asses of themselves.

[Tiberius]

Anarchist economics that reject money aren't truly anarchistic IMO, for the simple reason that in order for an entire nation to reject an economic system, there must be some force or governing body that enforces the rejection, which immediately negates anarchism. The entire concept of "banning" or "abolishing" something like an economic system is authoritarian.

The only true anarchistic economy is one where each individual decides by what method they want to exchange goods / services. Two people might not be able to do business because of this, but that is the sacrifice you have to make in anarchism.

[reverendjeremiah]

Anarchist economics that reject money aren't truly anarchistic IMO

A pure anarchist system would accept money, but only for the value deemed from the neighboring countries they trade with...and then, lets be honest, Anarchism is very adamant on decentralization. If Mexico was Anarchist they would prefer trade in goods as compared to trade in US dollars, as dollars have no real worth (Worth in this situation being that gold and silver coins could be melted down to create beautiful works of art, or circuitry components) other than the worth imposed by those who control that fiat money system.

those who control the fiat system are in authority over others.

anarchists are opposed to authority

for the simple reason that in order for an entire nation to reject an economic system, there must be some force or governing body that enforces the rejection

If basic neccesities are socialised, what is the need for a fiat monetary system? It takes a governmental system to impose a fiat system, not to ignore it. In a "pure" anarchal society the people will make their choices. They will be very aware that they take their risks when involving themselves in the fiat systems of neighboring countries. When a REAL anarchist country was created (revolutionary spain), many capitalist societies embargoed them. Why? Because they refused to play along with the fiat system of currency and the usury that came attached to it.

fiat system means percentage rates.

Percentage rates = debt

Debt = wage slavery

That means those who utilize usury are in authority of those who accept the currency.

Therefore fiat currency = authority... something that is diametrically opposed to anarchy.

Now, if it is gold coins we are talking about, then the coins in and of themselves are fine, as long as no laws are inacted to change their worth, or inforce percentages upon them...or stop people from changing them from coin to something else. If that is so then the gold coins become fiat currency, much like how gold was during the reign of the American founding fathers.

But, gold coins in and of themselves are not "money" in the sense that we understand money today. In this sense, gold coins are amounts of material to be BARTERED for other goods and services. Such and such amount of gold coins for such and such amounts of corn. As long as there are no laws forbidding you to melt it down, then gold is no longer authoritarian. It is merely a product which can be formed and processed. If there ARE laws forbidding its destruction, then it is a stamped tender of authority, and those who stamp it and legislate it are the enemies of freedom who will usually enact usury upon the masses. Usury is slavery. Ususry is authority, forcing those to work for the benefits of others. Anarchism opposes this concept. Forcing others to do your bidding by ANY means is authority, and anarchists oppose authority.

Surely you must understand this.

Example: Wallsteet. A small handful of people own the majority of most of America through wallstreet. This is authority. Their decisions control the lives of many, including the government. If the US doesnt play ball with them, then they pull the strings and force it. WHY? Because of the fiat system. Because of the "trust" system. You see, it is difficult to control gold. Sure, the oligrachy can make laws to stamp gold, make it not "really" yours, make it a major crime to use it as a commodity, etc... but in the end when you put gold in the hands of people you are putting a commodity in their hands. They can sneak around the system. This is why most countries have gone to "trust" money. In other words, we "trust" those who tell us the money is worth what it is worth. In reality a million dollars of paper money isnt worth an ear of corn...if not for the authority enforced behind it. The money is only worth the material is it stamped on and they know this. So, therefore, they have screwed us even more through fiat systems.

Fiat money is money that derives its value from government regulation or law.

THAT is the money that would not exist in an anarchist society. Fiat money is authority imposed upon the masses. supporting it is anti-anarchal and accepting authority over your life.

The entire concept of "banning" or "abolishing" something like an economic system is authoritarian.

If I ban authority, is that an authoritarian concept? Banning a fiat system is imposing more freedoms upon people. If you consider that authoritarian, then I dont know what else to say to you.

The only true anarchistic economy is one where each individual decides by what method they want to exchange goods / services.

I tend to agree...but I STRICTLY oppose the fiat currency. I want gold in my hands. Being paid in gold would open new worlds of freedom for me that those in power do not want me to have. Ultimately, anarchal economics can be a bit of a free for all. The biggest thing is that authority is NOT tied to the commodity. If someone is hording food while others starve, then they deserve to be run down by the hungry masses. They are hording it for authoritarian purposes. They intend to make us slaves for our hunger. If you cannot understand this concept, then you are no anarchist.

To be fair..perhaps me and you are confusing "money" between "fiat money" and commodities - When I say "money" I mean "fiat money". I have no problem with the sum of my labor being a "money" of sorts. If you support usury, then how can you call yourself an anarchist?