Reptired wrote:
Its not like for like, ergo strawman.
Like for like would be to compare gold with diamonds as both are not food and both are used as artificial value.
It is the food ofc which has real value which is what the discussion is about at the end of the day, perceived value vs actual value.
Humanity will only change when perception changes because in actual fact, most of our lives revolve around belief, its why religion had an important role for so long. If you can control peoples beliefs then you can control their actions and behaviour.

andyh wrote:
The Straw Man fallacy is person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Diamonds are hard , Gold is soft.
Diamonds allow light through, Gold not so much.

It's a bit pedantic, I agree with the base argument in your post though, although I would say Religion is alive and well.
You should come down to the Temple some day andyh, we always need another sacrifice for the great project!

I would totally agree the fed etc is the new temple because the whole world believes it.
The dollar hegemony and american exceptionalism is one of the new religions but the pound, the euro, the yen etc are all just as important and all part of the same fractional reserve system.

Even if you were to remove the FR banking system you would still be left with an imbalanced system with a few stinking rich people who could still steer the world the way they want it because you would still have money, theres simply no escaping it.

andyh wrote:
Perhaps, that's not an argument for the status quo though, in a world where Central Banking and Taxation were not accepted those Intra Species Specific Clepto Parasites wouldn't be long running out of resources.
Or perhaps they would become productive.

Reptired wrote:
If you issue too much money then you'll have inflation, thats true regardless of whether you have FR banking or not.
Before we had FR banking taxation was used under the fiat system to control inflation.
Before the fiat system we had money limited by resource supply eg gold/silver, while this system was stable it still got cornered by means of force.
No matter what you do, if you have a monetary system a handful will prosper while the majority will suffer. It is inevitable.

andyh wrote: Sure, if you had competition this might mitigate some of that though, competing voluntary fiat systems and real (backed) monetary systems.
andyh wrote: I'm not sure what you mean, specifically "taxation was used under the fiat system".
I would consider Taxation and Enforced Fiat as the same category of action, it's all just theft at the end of the day.
andyh wrote: Yeah, to some extent, but there is an underlying psychological problem that allowed that, you can't have a tiny number of people controlling a massive number through force if the masses do not accept this force as legitimate, at least you couldn't in the past.
andyh wrote:
I disagree, if you have a society that accepts violence by a small minority as a good thing then the majority will always suffer. The monetary system follows the Philosophy (or lack thereof) of the society.

Reptired wrote: You're mixing up the types of money there.
Theres a place where they do that right now, its called Somalia.
Its not working out that well.

andyh wrote: I'm not sure what you mean, specifically "taxation was used under the fiat system".
I would consider Taxation and Enforced Fiat as the same category of action, it's all just theft at the end of the day.
[/quote]

True but criminals really couldn't give a shit either way.
andyh wrote:
Yeah, to some extent, but there is an underlying psychological problem that allowed that, you can't have a tiny number of people controlling a massive number through force if the masses do not accept this force as legitimate, at least you couldn't in the past.


Then you have Somalia instead but I notice you said in the past which ofc just points out that the entire statement was bollocks

andyh wrote:
I disagree, if you have a society that accepts violence by a small minority as a good thing then the majority will always suffer. The monetary system follows the Philosophy (or lack thereof) of the society. [/quote]

You just said above its OK if the majority don't like violence but a minority accept it lol.
Thats called cognitive dissonance btw.

Gold, diamonds etc are physical things with real world uses. It is not the existence of them that is the problem, even if their relative scarcity makes them comparatively 'valued'.
As has already been pointed out, the problem is an abstract intangible one. The problem is in our minds. It's the way in which we manage resources. It's the reliance on something (money) that is ultimately useless. It's the blind acceptance of the way things are. It's the conditioning that involves instilling things like social ladders, competition and avarice as social norms. It's the hardline way in which anyone seeking alternatives is 'dealt with'.

I applaud the OP's sentiment but sadly it is looking for an answer in the wrong place imho.

knobmeup wrote:
Then whats the answer then if any...