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.
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.