Force (was: Money as explanation part 4: two party interaction)

[Rami Rustom]

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> Are you saying that I should not attempt to improve the nature of our money? Are you saying it's impossible to improve the nature of our money? Are you saying that I should let others who agree with you be the only ones who express ideas about money? Because I also like versatile tools. I find our current form of money to be far from versatile. It seems to force all sorts of things upon the economy and the society. So it isn't at all clear to me how you would have me react to the economic problems the world has been experiencing that involve money. The impression I get is that I should "shut up." Perhaps I misunderstand your goal / intent.

Force? What are you talking about? Are you using that as a metaphor?
Or do you mean it literally? If metaphor, what is the literal meaning?

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com

[Mason, Larry K]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:10 AM Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>

>> It (the nature of our current money) seems to force all sorts of things upon the economy and the society.

>Force? What are you talking about? Are you using that as a metaphor?
>Or do you mean it literally? If metaphor, what is the literal meaning?

I am talking about the nature of our money resulting in the existence of certain problems. Theft of money is an example. Any economy having a physical object money will experience theft of money by various means. Taxes are another "feature" which all nations using a physical object money possess.

[Rami Rustom]

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:10 AM Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> It (the nature of our current money) seems to force all sorts of things upon the economy and the society.
>
>>Force? What are you talking about? Are you using that as a metaphor?
>>Or do you mean it literally? If metaphor, what is the literal meaning?
>
> I am talking about the nature of our money resulting in the existence of certain problems. Theft of money is an example.

So you're saying that the nature of our money causes people to steal?

> Any economy having a physical object money will experience theft of money by various means.

Why do you say that the economy experiences theft? Who is the active
agent in the decision to steal? The economy or the person?

> Taxes are another "feature" which all nations using a physical object money possess.

No. We do taxes because governments need money to do things. Taxes
exist because governments exist. Taxes are not a result of money.

[Mason, Larry K]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 4:57 PM Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:10 AM Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> It (the nature of our current money) seems to force all sorts of things upon the economy and the society.
>
>>>Force? What are you talking about? Are you using that as a metaphor?
>>>Or do you mean it literally? If metaphor, what is the literal meaning?
>
>> I am talking about the nature of our money resulting in the existence of certain problems. Theft of money is an example.

>So you're saying that the nature of our money causes people to steal?

No. I am saying that if money _can be_ stolen and if almost all adults want more money than they have then money will be stolen.

>> Any economy having a physical object money will experience theft of money by various means.

>Why do you say that the economy experiences theft? Who is the active agent in the decision to steal? The economy or the person?

I say it because we are taking the point of view of the society / economy as a whole. (See the answer above.)

>> Taxes are another "feature" which all nations using a physical object money possess.

>No. We do taxes because governments need money to do things. Taxes exist because governments exist. Taxes are not a result of money.

If money could not be taken against the will of the owner there would be no taxes. If the government could not take money there would be no taxes.

[Rami Rustom]

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 4:57 PM Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>> On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:10 AM Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>Force? What are you talking about? Are you using that as a metaphor?
>>>>Or do you mean it literally? If metaphor, what is the literal meaning?
>>
>>> I am talking about the nature of our money resulting in the existence of certain problems. Theft of money is an example.
>
>>So you're saying that the nature of our money causes people to steal?
>
> No. I am saying that if money _can be_ stolen and if almost all adults want more money than they have then money will be stolen.

So you brought up two things:

(1) that our existing money causes problems, which is that money *can
be* stolen.

(2) that (1) isn't a problem unless an *adult wants more money than he
has [and is willing to take it from another person against his will]*.


Note that (2) is a rewording of something you said before, that Elliot
already criticized (and you evaded the criticism). You said that you
want to create a money that can't be stolen. Elliot said that that is
impossible, and that trying to do it is bad. And you changed your
position (in order to evade the criticism) saying that your new money
is not perfect, it still causes problems, and I think you mean that it
can still be stolen, but that the theft will be much less, but I
haven't heard your explanation of how (how it could be stolen, and how
it'll be less than the existing money).

Note that (1) is a problem for both kinds of money, the existing one
and your new one. You've said that both moneys can be stolen, so that
raises the question: If there is a person that wants more money and is
willing to take it from another person against his will, why would
your new money prevent him from stealing it? Whatever your answer is,
that contradicts your changed position which is that your new money
can still be stolen.

>
>>> Any economy having a physical object money will experience theft of money by various means.
>
>>Why do you say that the economy experiences theft? Who is the active agent in the decision to steal? The economy or the person?
>
> I say it because we are taking the point of view of the society / economy as a whole. (See the answer above.)

But economies don't *act*. People do.

>>> Taxes are another "feature" which all nations using a physical object money possess.
>
>>No. We do taxes because governments need money to do things. Taxes exist because governments exist. Taxes are not a result of money.
>
> If money could not be taken against the will of the owner there would be no taxes. If the government could not take money there would be no taxes.

If a government does not have taxes, then how does it fund its activities?

[Rami Rustom]

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:04 AM Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 13, 2013 4:57 PM Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:10 AM Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Force? What are you talking about? Are you using that as a metaphor?
>>>>>>Or do you mean it literally? If metaphor, what is the literal meaning?
>>>
>>>>> I am talking about the nature of our money resulting in the existence of certain problems. Theft of money is an example.
>>
>>>>So you're saying that the nature of our money causes people to steal?
>>
>>> No. I am saying that if money _can be_ stolen and if almost all adults want more money than they have then money will be stolen.
>
>>So you brought up two things:
>
>>(1) that our existing money causes problems, which is that money *can be* stolen.
>

> The problem given in the example is that money *will* be stolen. The reason given being that it *can* be stolen and that of the many people who want more money *some* will yield to the temptation to steal money.

But that assumes that some people will always have evil ideas, namely
about willingness to do stuff to people against their will. Why do you
assume that?

>
>>(2) that (1) isn't a problem unless an *adult wants more money than he has [and is willing to take it from another person against his will]*.
>

> Out of all the people who want money some will be willing to take it from another person against his will.

Even in the future? Don't you think that those evil memes are unfit
and so they will lose to the good memes?

>>Note that (2) is a rewording of something you said before, that Elliot already criticized (and you evaded the criticism). You said that you want to create a money that can't be stolen. Elliot said that that is impossible, and that trying to do it is bad. And you changed your position (in order to evade the criticism) saying that your new money is not perfect, it still causes problems, and I think you mean that it can still be stolen, but that the theft will be much less, but I haven't heard your explanation of how (how it could be stolen, and how it'll be less than the existing money).
>

> You are mistaken when you write " I think you mean that it can still be stolen,". That is not at all what I meant.
>
> Other things may be stolen in my system but not money. I do not think my system is perfect since we are only human. It's just a major improvement.

How is it an improvement? What problem does it solve that existing
money doesn't solve?

>>Note that (1) is a problem for both kinds of money, the existing one and your new one. You've said that both moneys can be stolen, so that raises the question: If there is a person that wants more money and is willing to take it from another person against his will, why would your new money prevent him from stealing it? Whatever your answer is, that contradicts your changed position which is that your new money can still be stolen.
>

> I have *not* said that my system makes the stealing of money possible.
>
> The money in my system is not transferrable.

>
>>>>> Any economy having a physical object money will experience theft of money by various means.
>>
>>>>Why do you say that the economy experiences theft? Who is the active agent in the decision to steal? The economy or the person?
>>
>>> I say it because we are taking the point of view of the society / economy as a whole. (See the answer above.)
>
>>But economies don't *act*. People do.
>

> But we can take the point of view of things other than human beings. We can even take the point of view of fictional characters.

Fictional characters are hypothetical persons, persons that make
decisions. Groups of people are not hypothetical persons, groups don't
make decisions.


> So it's pretty easy to view the effects of something upon a nation or a society or an economy or a company or other social arrangement of people.

>
>>>>> Taxes are another "feature" which all nations using a physical object money possess.
>>
>>>>No. We do taxes because governments need money to do things. Taxes exist because governments exist. Taxes are not a result of money.
>>
>>> If money could not be taken against the will of the owner there would be no taxes. If the government could not take money there would be no taxes.
>
>>If a government does not have taxes, then how does it fund its activities?
>

> It doesn't. In my system the government has no money and spends no money. In fact, there's almost no government at all.

Two things that don't make sense.

(1) What are the government's few duties in your system? Isn't one of
them to control who is and who isn't a payer? Isn't one of them to
control which things are deemed luxuries vs necessities? Aren't these
things *huge* duties? Explain how these things work.

(2) If government exists ("there's almost no government at all"), then
it needs to fund its activities. So how does it do that if not by
taxes?