Thats a bit naive
War is only possible with fake or stolen money.
You really think that if money is totally anonymous and untraceable then it cannot be used for war? What about wars financed by gold or gems?
It becomes much more difficult to raise funds or support when you cannot create either out of thin air and must gain the consent of other parties. With fiat, another entity is ultimately in control of your currency and its value. That entity can do things like implement hidden stealth taxes that are unable to be avoided even if the end user of the currency is not directly taxed or stolen from in a visible manner. If you were in control of real hard money they would have to extract it by consent or by force. That’s not to say entities like the state wouldn’t do that, just that it would be much harder to accomplish and much more visible to those being stolen from or requested to donate to the cause exactly what is being done and how it is being done.
Ah, I see your point. While it’s true that non centralized money cannot be made out of thin air (unless it is defined to do so by mining), and it is harder to tax people when they are their own bank and they use such untraceable money, there are ways to enforce taxes. One such way is coming to your house with two large and muscular persons, and asking you politely. Another one is by asking your employer to automatically deduct the taxes from your salary (like it is in most of the world) and transfer them over to the state.
All those taxes mean the state has capital for war. Again, money cannot be printed to pay for things that states cannot afford, but on the other hand there’s always deflation so value is being created out of thin air.
Exactly. In both cases you proposed, the threat of violence or some form of blackmail is used. And in your first example, it is fairly easy to see and understand, though it can be either explicit or implicit. If an agent shows up with two thugs and says please hand over your money, the decision to verbalize the “or else” statement or not determines which of the two manners in which the threat is delivered, but it seems likely that the party being threatened would usually get the picture fairly clearly and isn’t in the dark as to they dynamics at play. I actually prefer this to the other because it’s more honest and more clear how the system is working.
In the case of automatic deduction from salary, those dynamics get obfuscated a bit, becoming harder to recognize. Your employer is used as a proxy for the thugs in the other example. For the most part, any business enterprise that wants to be seen as legitimate and afforded legal protections needs to jump through a lot of hoops, including things like applying for licenses, which are granted or denied to them by the perceived authority above them. It follows then that they exist at the behest of, and are beholden to, the entity that claims the power to grant this legal status or to take it away or punish them for non compliance. This creates extra cost and inefficiency they may otherwise wish to avoid. The business now has to take on the role of a collection agency for which they receive no value other than hopefully alleviating the pressure of the threat that they will be punished or disfavored for not complying. The granting authority has now unofficially deputized agents to do their bidding whether the agents would have been willing to do so or not of their own accord, as there is no real choice to opt out available to the business if they wish to operate without enforcement showing up to shut them down. Many I’m sure would prefer to keep more of the currency they earn in the course of business and would also prefer not to tell current and potential employees they will be taking a haircut on their earnings that will not benefit the earner or the business.
The difference between those two situations above shows how things like using proxies to accomplish your goals as well as increasing complexity and obfuscation can mask the true nature of the wealth transfer to the individual who has their wealth extracted. There are many ways this happens increasing in that complexity and obfuscation that makes it difficult for the individual to get a clear idea of how the wealth is being taken, let alone how it will be used afterwards.
It can get difficult to disentangle fairly quickly, but this is mostly a wordy tangent from the central banks which implement a very powerful use of other types of sleight of hand. Your comments just got me thinking down this track 🙂
The meddling of central banks hand into a market makes it inherently less fair and not free. There are many many methods they implement that tip the scales, including inflation and deflation of a currency as TJ mentions in the attached image. Keep in mind that these things are decided by a small group of typically well heeled and well connected people who make up these organizations and they are usually far removed from the average person in any given society. To add insult to injury, they are typically unelected and face no recourse for the holders of the currency whom they impact.
I’m personally anti-war. That said, my personal preference isn’t going to stop all wars. So I’d at least much prefer that if people wanted to prosecute a war, that the funds for war be requested and gained through persuasive argument rather than by sleight of hand or by force and they donated to the cause with eyes wide open and full understanding voluntarily. If the state had to request funding like any other project, each person donating to fund the cause would be forced to think much harder if the results were a product they were happy with purchasing or funding. They could even stop funding it much like a subscription that no longer meets their needs or aligns with their values over time.
Yeah, everything you said is correct. This is how the world works, you have states that (if democratic) get legitimacy and superiority from the people by the use of elections and limitations. The people grant the state (usually) a monopoly on violence in order for it to offer public services such as security, public infrastructure and some safeguard to the small singular civilian from large corporations and organizations (in Lebanon there is actually a duopoly of violence between the state and Hezbollah, this caused them great trouble and instability, but I digress). This is a popular thing, people generally want the public services that the state provides, and they’re willing to pay for them. They may complain about it and be unsatisfied by the prices and use of the money, but they can elect (or be elected) someone to fix that unsatisfactory problem.
But all of this does not change the fact that monero (if it ever will gain popularity) will be used to finance wars just like fiat money.
Yes, I don’t disagree that any tool or currency that can be used for aggression will eventually be used for aggression by state actors or otherwise if it gains enough use and popularity. I think the meme is reductive, as most memes are, but I appreciate what it is attempting to illustrate. I think we are now discussing things like scale, scope and transparency rather than ability or inability. Many large wars as we know them today likely could not be financed without “fake” printed currency or stolen currency, so that’s the kernel of truth I saw in it.
To the transparency part, I’d at very least prefer to limit the ability of organizations to prosecute wars by using or manipulating the funds of other people without the full and informed consent of those people they are using as a funding source for them. I think alternative currencies that empower the individual more and disempower both the states and their central banks can help with that. Or at least help in causing the individual to honestly face their contribution to the costs like death and destruction that result from war by being aware of when where and how their funds are being taken and used. Sadly, most I speak with are clueless about this or how any of it works.
Moreover, among other things, money printing and debt is what primarily funds most modern wars of states that utilize central banks, and that debt is to be paid by future unborn generations, removing their voice or consent from the equation entirely.
I also do not disagree with your take that is how it works in practice in most so-called democracies or republics. I think it minimizes and disempowers the individual and the minority and I think it would be better if individuals could opt out of both the debts and burdens and the services they supposedly afford, lest it fall into the trap most so-called democracies do where it ends up as two wolves and a sheep arguing over what’s for dinner and tramples the wants and desires of those individuals or minorities.
As you may infer I am an individualist and not a collectivist, but I’m obviously veering off into a much larger topic better suited for another discussion at this point.
I very much appreciate that you are fully informed on how the state is an entity that claims a monopoly on violence. Many I talk with refuse to admit this even despite the evidence, and I suspect it is because they wish to optimistically believe the state they live under to be benevolent and just even if they recognize the similarly utilized methods lead to tyranny in other states elsewhere. Whether that monopoly on violence mentioned is legitimate or something that even can ever be granted in a fair and just way on behalf of entire varied populations consisting of unique individuals is also a much bigger topic for another discussion.
Anyway, I appreciate the back and forth. Civil conversations on the internet seem more rare by the day. Have a great one.
