government

I can’t stomach the facebook feeds of my Israeli friends

August 5, 2014 Incoherent ramblings No comments , , , , , , ,

As a child I was indoctrinated as a Scientologist (which I essentially gave up for Science), and don’t have any traditional religious affiliations to color my view on the world.  In particular, I do not have a Christian bias, I do not have a Jewish bias, and do not have a Muslim bias.  I have friends in all these groups.

I do have biases though.  I admit to, largely due to my father’s influence, having an anarchist and anti-government bias.  I think that he arrived at this position as a reaction to having been ejected from his homeland after the Russian and German governments alternately burning, pillaging, and raped their way through Estonia.  I do not consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be a religious conflict, but one imposed by decisions that have been made by governments.  Governments imposed a social structure on a geography that should never have been there in the first place.  The Israeli situation is one that is supported by governments.  For example, it seems clear to me that the US government does not want to stop this conflict.  If they did, then they could stop arming one side, providing three billion dollars a year of “military aid” to the Israeli government.  You cannot give people that many weapons, and expect them to act peacefully.  Even calling this “aid” is disgusting to me.  This is corporate welfare for US arms dealers, funding them at the expense of the US taxpayer … but that is a different rant.

I have a number of friends from IBM that have migrated to Israel for reasons (presumably religious, but perhaps social) that I don’t think I will ever understand.  Now that they are there, I don’t expect any of them to be able to look at the situation objectively.  Now that the Israeli government is so thoroughly attacking the Palestinian people, I no longer see baby pictures on their social media feeds, but all the typical propaganda of a country that is attacking another, so desperately attempting to provide themselves with justification of the actions that are being taken by their government.  It is painful to see this kind of bias, especially from people that I know to be incredibly intelligent.  While I haven’t “unfriended” any of these people, I admit to having systematically unfollowed them on facebook, one after another as they push views that are so one sided they were painful to observe.  I found this deliberate unfollowing emotionally painful to do, but less painful than seeing them blindly towing their government’s party line and less painful then observing their refusal to see any of the historical context that generated this situation in the first place.

I don’t know how I would behave if I were living in Israel.  How would I behave when the bomb sirens start screaming?  How would I behave when I was fearing for the lives of my kids?  I don’t know that I would be able to look at things objectively.  I’d like to believe that I could, but could I fight the social pressures that support what seems like an irrational worldview from the outside?  Perhaps I am deluding myself.

As an outsider, I find it easy to accept the description of the militarized wall around the Palestinian people in Gaza as the boundary of an open air prison.  Periodic attack of these people with population pressure and bulldozers, sophisticated bombs, tanks and heavily armed soldiers is not consistent with what can easily be described as self defense.

I think it is counterproductive to label your enemies terrorists.  All warfare should be labelled terrorism.  What is known as terrorism is a created phenomena, and does not happen without it being a reaction to other events.  Hamas may be shooting their homemade rockets into Israel now, but this is an action that is in response to decades of oppression, enforced isolation, and a reaction to have been forced out of their homes and other violence.  As an outsider the Israeli government appears to be supporting systematic ethnic cleaning.  It is hard to see it any other way.

I’d like to understand the reasons that my now-Israeli friends had for going there in the first place.  How does it make any sense to impose even more population pressure on a situation that was already dire?  How can you, in the name of a religion, support a such a militaristic government?  If you were locked in Gaza with no hope, very little access to food and water and basic requirements for survival, if you had seen your friends pushed out of their homes with bulldozers and armed soldiers time and time again, if you saw your hospitals and universities and your power plants bombed, if you saw your kids with portions brains blown out by the fire of overzealous young soldiers armed to the teeth, how would you respond?  Would you try to oppose the incursion?  Would you also react with violence?

I think that only Israel can stop this conflict.  They are the ones in the position of power with all the options at their disposal.  If the Israeli people could be brave enough to put down their arms, to stop accepting military aid, to tear down the wall, stop the embargoes, stop the active propaganda warfare that fuels the conflict, and most importantly, to look objectively at the actions they have made that created this situation, then there could be peace.  Reacting with aggressive military force can only make the situation worse.

Some thoughts about bitcoin, money and anarchy

July 11, 2014 Bitcoin 2 comments , , , , , , ,

Recommended reading: Ellen Brown’s “Web of Debt”

You may think that you do not care to understand how debt based banking and associated currencies work. Many of us probably think of money as nothing more than a means to an end. The mechanism that allows governments and banks to create money does not seem important in day to day life. Provided we get our paycheck, in day to day life, we only care that we can use it to pay our bills, buy our groceries, provide clothes and shelter for our kids, entertain ourselves, and so forth.

To help explain both the mechanisms of debt based currencies, and some of the implications and history of the current system, I would recommend the book “Web of Debt” [1]. This book explains many subtle details of modern debt based monetary systems, and has a few elements

  • The mechanism that allows money to be created from debt.
  • A historical (and very unconventional) narrative of warfare from the viewpoint of banking manipulations.
  • A history of the United States “Fed”, its history, its backers and the sorts of manipulations that it allows.
  • A discussion of alternative currencies and possible solutions.

You will also find lots of details about how the world financial system got to be in such a mess. I found that learning the extent of this mess was almost physically painful, a response that makes it easy to understand why so many people put up with the status-quo. It is easier and more comfortable to just not know.

In the unconventional historical narrative in this text most warfare is framed as motivated by banking interests. That perspective is so different from conventional history that many people will probably it flat out unbelievable. The author did not help that believability by framing it as self evident. A more scholarly presentation as a thesis with supporting arguments and documentation would have helped lend that history more credence.

A number of possible alternative monetary schemes are considered. The most weight is put on nationalization of banks, with debt free creation of money used instead of government borrowing the money that they print from private banks. It seems implausible that enough people will learn the mechanics of our monetary system to force a grass roots movement that could wrest control of money creation from the private banking industry. If such a paradigm shift is unlikely, reform would probably require some of the smaller scale local monetary ideas catch on, or the invention of alternate currencies (this is where I think bitcoin would fit nicely).

There are a number of such alternative currencies discussed in this book. These include local (municipal) currencies, currencies based on barter and time expended to provide services. I do not think that many such specialized currencies will ever find wide spread acceptance. Something that is widely tradable in a variety of circumstances is required to break the widespread dependence on the current central banking system. This book does mention some electronic currencies, but I believe that it predates bitcoin slightly. Perhaps bitcoin and/or alt-coins will make it into a future edition.

Are these topics that would motivate the average Joe into learning how money is created and manipulated? Not likely.

Why do I think that this is worthwhile? I think that this is worth knowing because so much of your money is being spent without consent by the governments that are nominally but not functionally our representatives. It is very informative to gain some historical perspective of the abuses that are enabled by financial manipulation. When fifty percent of your hard earned money is stolen from you, and you face fines, imprisonment, and confiscation of property if you object to that stealing or how your resources are consumed, it is clearly worthwhile to understand some of the mechanics involved.

However, most people are content with the status-quo. Most people accept the delusion that we live in a functioning democracy. Most people go through their day to day lives believing in the stability of the financial system. A switch to a monetary system that deviates from our current central bank scheme has so many implications, they are hard to enumerate. Without some sort of catastrophic motivation the resistance to such a change would be extreme. If the history of the author is accepted, such a change is likely to starts wars.

What is money?

Money ought to be nothing more than a mechanism to facilitate exchange. Goods or services that have value to both the buyer and seller should be exchangeable either directly or using some form of currency. Currency in such a context is just something that has an agreed upon value that can be used to facilitate multiple party transaction where not all of the goods or services offered are of interest to all parties at the time of the transaction.

Does the currency have to have any intrinsic value? Except for coins, it has been a long time since the monies that we use had any sort of intrinsic value. Through our laws we have the strange situation that we authorize “special” institutions the power to create money on our behalf. That is either done directly by central banks or indirectly by regular banks when debt is issued, or still more indirectly by companies that issue tradable stocks. Banks essentially have the power to issue money because they give themselves this power by controlling the financing of the puppet politicians that write the laws that give them these powers. It is a truly bizarre system that we have grown up accustomed to, and due to that acclimatization, do not question in our day to day lives.

If money has no intrinsic value, what is it? Oxford dictionaries [2] includes the following definitions

  1. A current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively.
  2. The assets, property, and resources owned by someone or something; wealth
  3. Financial gain
  4. Payment for work; wages

The first definition is clearly dated. Most of the money that changes hands these days has no corresponding coin or banknotes associated with it. Paychecks are directly deposited into our bank account. We can pay our bills online, or write cheques that represent banknotes, but in the vast majority of cases never see any physical monies that represent either what we receive or distribute. For all intents and purposes our monies are electronic already, but the electronic transactions are in the control of special institutions that have been granted exclusive privilege to profit by handling these transactions.

The second definition has broader applicability, but has no connection to the concept that money is a mechanism of exchange.

The third definition describes stock market and debt based creation of money nicely, but is also not a very broad definition.

I happen to like Ron Hubbard’s definition of money [3], “Money is an idea backed by confidence”.

There is a level of abstraction in this definition that describes the utility of money as a mechanism for barter. Confidence that money will be accepted by all parties regardless of what exchange it happens to be used for at any point in time is what makes it valuable. The debt based “Fiat currencies” (a popular term used to describe our central bank created monies) have value because we all agree that they do, and have confidence that they can be used in future exchange. If that confidence is lost, the money becomes worthless.

Should we wish to use currencies that are not under any sort of third party control (i.e. financial institutions and governments), the main hurdle is the requirement that people using any alternate currency will be confident that such an alternative currency has value.

This is a bit of a catch 22 for the adoption of any new currency, including bitcoin. To give it value, people have to start using it.

My anarchist rant. Why I like the idea of bitcoin?

It seems to me that bitcoin or something like it could easily provide a currency that is both widely tradable, and is also not controlled by coercive, warmongering or generally abusive governments and their associated banking systems.

We live in a world where the products of your time and work are taken from you by force to be spent by authorities who know better than you how your money should be spent. We do not have the option of vetoing spending on things that we find morally objectionable or damaging. Ironically the only reason that the guys in blue with guns can haul you away for not paying your taxes is because you pay them implicitly with your taxes to do this job, like it or not. These are the same guys that routinely break the same rules they enforce.

When so many wars are funded by debt, imagine a world where we have the possibility of anonymous person to person transfers of money are possible without the intervention or even monitoring of third parties, and without those third parties taking a cut without providing any valuable service. Imagine a world where coercion and threats of governments are not possible, because we stop paying them to threaten us. Imagine a world where consent is required.

That is why I like the idea of bitcoin or a bitcoin like electronic currency. If it is ever accepted for widespread trade, it provides a decentralized infrastructure that allows for direct and anonymous person to person transfers. It could facilitate a paradigm shift to a more barter oriented and localized culture that bypasses government power, undercutting the institutions that we fund to keep us underfoot. It has the potential for eliminating warfare by eliminating the coercive collection of the monies that are used to finance it. It has the potential to eliminate the banking and financial scum that sucks the life out of the people that actually work for a living, and profits from keeping them underfoot.

I am surely a naive dreamer, but I wake up thinking that I have good dreams.

References

[1] Ellen Hodgson Brown. Web of debt: The shocking truth about our money system and how we can break free. Ellen Brown, 2008.

[2] Oxford dictionaries. Oxford dictionaries, money, 2014. URL http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/money. [Online; accessed 11-July-2014].

[3] L. Ron Hubbard. Barter System. HCO PL 27 Nov 71, Barter System, 1971. URL http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/tech/admin-dic-1-4.txt. [Online; accessed 11-July-2014].