Money is an option to purchase human labor, and money creation is a global human labor futures market.
State asserts ownership of our labor, by spending options to claim our labor into existence as currency. (one way to create money, pay with other people’s stuff)
Why should we not include each in money creation?
All sovereign debt shall be financed with Shares of global fiat credit, that may be claimed by each adult human on the planet, held in trust with local deposit banks, administered by local fiduciaries and actuaries exclusively for secure sovereign investment at a fixed and sustainable rate, as part of an actual social contract
“Now Proudhon advocated a society without government and used the word anarchy to describe it. Proudhon repudiated, as is known, all schemes of communism, according to which mankind would be driven into communistic monasteries or barracks, as also all the schemes of state or state-aided socialism which were advocated by Louis Blanc and the collectivists. When he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that ‘Property is theft’, he meant only property in its present, Roman-law, sense of ‘right of use and abuse’; in property-rights, on the other hand, understood in the limited sense of possession, he saw the best protection against the encroachments of the state. At the same time he did not want violently to dispossess the present owners of land, dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He preferred to attain the same end by rendering capital incapable of earning interest; and this he proposed to obtain by means of a national bank, based on the mutual confidence of all those who are engaged in production, who would agree to exchange among themselves their produces at cost-value, by means of labour cheques representing the hours of labour required to produce every given commodity. Under such a system, which Proudhon described as ‘Mutuellisme’, all the exchanges of services would be strictly equivalent. Besides, such a bank would be enabled to lend money without interest, levying only something like I per cent, or even less, for covering the cost of administration. Everyone being thus enabled to borrow the money that would be required to buy a house, nobody would agree to pay any more a yearly rent for the use of it. A general ‘social liquidation’ would thus be rendered easy, without violent expropriation. The same applied to mines, railways, factories and so on.
In a society of this type the state would be useless. The chief relations between citizens would be based on free agreement and regulated by mere account keeping. The contests might be settled by arbitration. A penetrating criticism of the state and all possible forms of government, and a deep insight into all economic problems, were well-known characteristics of Proudhon’s work”
Issuance of the money is one question Stephen and I agree your solution would work well enough and probably also stay on the correct side of the Pigou Dalton Principle which has insights into Taxation psychology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou%E2%80%93Dalton_principle
On WeslyFreebergs Quanta the Measure of the Unit of account is profound to the basis of the value of the generally produced, “Universal Income Money”?
Wesley provides profound insights into the embodied energy aspects of the production of life’s necessities and luxuries and Decisions on production whilst providing self-ownership and symbiosis is something which Abstract money simply does not do, Wesley proves his point in his essay here.
There are several ways to skin the cat but I do think that Money as a commons or even a UBI based upon the rights of Man, Paine and many others.
- Thomas Paine, a philosopher and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, advocated a capital grant and an unconditional citizens pension in his 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice.
- Thomas Spence was apparently the first to layout in full what is now called a universal basic income.
- American economist Henry George advocated for a citizen’s dividend paid for by a land tax in 1871 and in his 1885 speech “The Crime of Poverty”.
- Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek advocated a guaranteed minimum income in his 1944 book The Road to Serfdom, and reiterated his support in his 1973 book Law, Legislation and Liberty.
- American economists James Tobin, Paul Samuelson, and John Kenneth Galbraith signed a document with 1,200 other economists in 1968 calling for the 90th U.S. Congress to introduce in that year a system of income guarantees and supplements.
- American economist Milton Friedman advocated a basic income in the form of a negative income tax in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, and again in his 1980 book Free to Choose.
- Civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. endorsed it under the name of “the guaranteed income” in his 1967 book Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? shortly before his assassination.
- U.S. Senator George McGovern from South Dakota sponsored a bill proposed by the National Welfare Rights Organization to enact a $6,500 guaranteed minimum income, and in his 1972 presidential campaign, proposed replacing the personal income tax exemption with a $1,000 tax credit as a minimum-income floor for every citizen.
I have made my own extensive researches into these questions which are found on my own blog meanwhile I hope that you and We will continue your twitter conversation exploring the synergies inherent in both of your insights.
An article published by Roy Sebag (“RS”) this past March with the above captioned title was recently brought to my attention in the course of an interesting “conversation” on Twitter, which actually included a well-known anthropologist, some crypto people, and some “gold-bugs” inter alia. In this essay, my first on Medium, I shall argue RS fails to properly describe “the Natural Order of Money” with an undisguised attempt to perpetuate a long-ago discredited “intrinsic” value theory.
And, by its glaring omission, RS also evidences misunderstanding of the historical relationship and distinction between the Unit-of-Account (or what I prefer, Money-of-Account) — the description and specification of “money” — and the Medium-of-Exchange (money-proper), whence the “money-stuff”