Re: [ox-en] extrinsic motivation = coercion
- From: Smári McCarthy <smari anarchism.is>
- Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 10:52:57 +0000
I don't think we should ban anything. Call it market disincentivization
or social contract or peer pressure or what you will, but bans are
generally formalizations of unjust policies implemented for the purpose
of excessive control.
We shouldn't need to ban usury. One of the core tenets of neo-liberal
price theory is that, in a free market competition will force profit to
zero. (see definition of 'normal profit' for more on this). This has two
implications that traditional capitalists frequently fail to acknowledge:
1) The perfect capitalist economy is, by their own definition, a gift
economy.
2) Government/central bank implementation of usury is, to quote Milton
Friedman, "intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulation".
The idea of maximizing profits is a reaction to the game that is brought
about by enforcing usury as a legal policy. Usury is the artificial
scarcification of money by the central banking authority (and subsequent
loan arrangements) which drives the demand for money up and the
availability of money down, artificially making money more valuable.
This creates a game, the rules of which could be posited like so:
1) You must participate
2) You cannot win
3) You cannot break even
4) You cannot quit
5) You lose by going bankrupt
In such a game, your best strategy is to be the _last_ person to go
bankrupt. You do this by being a bad person. Lying, stealing, cheating, etc.
What's the solution? Well. I realized recently that my diatribe isn't
with capitalism per se, but with the reactions capitalism has to
government intervention on the one hand and the results of enforcing
property on the other. Both can be eradicated. First, though, we need to
create a monetary system that does not rely on usury.
- Smári
Diego Saravia wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
To summarize: Interest and usury were the same thing originally, and are
still the same thing etymologically and rightfully, and I for one use
them as synonyms. However, there's been a lot of work put into diverging
the two terms in order to, well, make it acceptable to religious freaks
who think that as long as they bend the meaning of words enough their
god won't kill them. If only we were so lucky.
[It should be noted that I am a militant atheist.]
I am too
excelent post, I do not agree to forbid interest, but I am sympatetic with
your point of view.
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de