In principle we could do something like this. Transparent money has many advantages - though like any other legislation we'd expect the banksters and other crooks to try and get round it. There's an obvious problem with transparency - what happens to privacy? We might wonder what privacy really is before letting fears about it prevent more transparency. Somewhere lurking on economics is why we have to be controlled so much by needing 'money' - even to the extent that those with more than they can ever use are supposed to need ever increasing reward through it. It's hard not to accept that money is good as a means of exchange - but modern money is hardly just that and now prevents democracy, social mobility and so on. Economics seems an unholy alliance of rocket science and the tools available to build the spaceship in my shed. I do think economics is possible, but we don't even realise that whatever it is will vary with the way we live. Human relations are so pathetic that we'd probably kill loads of people if we saved up and took a tractor to rural India and gave it away.
On May 9, 3:47 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Here's what I'm getting at.... can (should) the "illegal" "stuff"... > criminal sales (drugs, etc) or otherwise ill-begotten gains (stolen goods > converted to cash) under the table... be "unvcovered" and all > be"unliquified"....either restored to the > defrauded victims or confiscated by the state (in lieu of some taxes to > taxpayers, say).....? > > I said above..... and "one" might say.. "Well, isn't that what usually > happens when the authorities retrieve ill-gotten or stolen goods, or the > fruit thereof?.... confiscate them and if the rightful owner isn't there to > be restituted.... property auction or the like it off?" > True enough..... except that some of these stolen or ill-gotten goods > aren't "classified" as such... I'm referring to all the "horse-droppings" > paper that you (Archytas) and others say the banks and financial > institutions (traders and brokerage houses and such) hold.....Why not > classify it all "stolen goods"?... restitute the mortgages to the "owners" > (paid in full)... and whatever else there is of a "physical" nature restore > to the people who bought it, too (again, paid in full).... but here's the > kicker..... hold the banks and institutions who wrote the "bad" mortgages > or brokered the "iffy" deals financially responsible for the "liquid" money > lost......HAR..... sounds good to me....Probably sound good to everyone.... > except the thieves..... > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:54:31 AM UTC-4, nominal9 wrote: > > > Another day, Archytas..... > > everyone ignores my dialectics.... until they function like a kick in the > > ass...HAR,.... then it's "theme" this and "theme" that..."point of view" > > here and "point of view" there... "motivation" this and "motivation" > > that.....etc..... everyone tries the words.... but they still don't get > > it.....because they all look for "the Answer".... which is the answer that > > "they" want (personally as in selfishly)....not the answer that's > > obvious....given the "dialectical logic" of things....Ethics seems to work > > ( I reiterate).... pragmatically (I think)) .....sooner or later.... the > > best interests of the most (whatever) .... fill in the blank..... takes > > hold..... until the next time most (whatever).... changes.... > > > Good plan... let's get back to the economics....Capital of all > > sorts....money is fungible.... but should all "goods and services" be > > "liquid"? > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity > > > Here's what I'm getting at.... can (should) the "illegal" "stuff"... > > criminal sales (drugs, etc) or otherwise ill-begotten gains (stolen goods > > converted to cash) under the table... be "unvcovered" and all > > be"unliquified"....either restored to the > > defrauded victims or confiscated by the state (in lieu of some taxes to > > taxpayers, say).....? > > On Monday, May 6, 2013 3:23:10 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > >> Capital is always treated as neutral Nom - but really our food-home- > >> beer vouchers are mixed-up with criminal, tax-dodging, looted and > >> speculative funds, along with all sorts of economic rent. There is > >> little reason for any of this given new technology. It's a long story > >> from this rather obvious start. I have rather neglected your > >> dialectics - must dash - back when more time. > > >> On 5 May, 19:40, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > Hi Archytas... long post... lot to comment on, and I'm skipping > >> much... > >> > otherwise it would take tomes.... > >> > I think you've seen how I try to deal with the subject of moral or > >> ethical > >> > value judgments... identify a "thematic dialectic" contraposition, then > >> > plug in the Good or Bad valuations accordingly.... If I'm dealing with > >> an > >> > opinion on the "thematic" registered by another person (say an author > >> of a > >> > work of literature) then I try to stay true (accurate) to the valuation > >> > given by that person.... just to be fair... I might say I disagree, but > >> I > >> > say that the disagreement is my own.... professional courtesy, I > >> > think.....I figure if I have a different take on it.... I should write > >> my > >> > own masterpiece (HAR).... I do the same at the ontological level.... > >> which > >> > is to say, valuation of what is taken for fact or fiction in any given > >> > context.....This whole "methodology" approach is a way of trying to > >> > establish some objectivity (in the common usage)... looking at > >> something in > >> > a disinterested or at least in an overtly judgmental manner (as opposed > >> to > >> > the ignorant usage IMO of "non-judgmental" by some which usually leads > >> to > >> > mean.... whatever the "reader or listener" wants to hear instead of > >> what is > >> > actually the case of the "work" under consideration)...I don't say that > >> > there is any possibility of a "scientific" knowledge of these ethical > >> (or > >> > cultural) judgments and the like, but there can be an "honest > >> reporting" > >> > standard, I think, and a "method" to that end is a track on the > >> honesty.... > > >> > Anyway....I found the following entry on Anarcho-Syndicalismhttps:// > >> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism > >> > I tried to see how it may apply to my own, personal, preference for > >> usage > >> > of the notion of anarchy ... Is there a branch of anarchy without the > >> > Syndicalism? I think that would better fit me.....I don't much care for > >> the > >> > "group" or "joint' thing.... I'm pretty much the "individual"... that > >> also > >> > fits in with my nominalist leanings.... you know, the individual as > >> > distinguished from the genus or the class....I like to think of myself > >> as > >> > "unique" (HAR). With reference to the wiki article, I tend to feel that > >> the > >> > syndicalist groups or "union" of individuals tends to constitute an > >> > "institution" in its own right..... I don't rightly know how the > >> dilemma > >> > can be righted... I mean by that dilemma, what if as an individual I > >> > disagree with the democratically voted majority opinion of my > >> "anarchist" > >> > peers?.... Well.... to be true to myself, I like to stand alone and > >> just do > >> > what I agree with.... if a group of like-minded "anarchists" (HAR) > >> goes > >> > along with me (or I with them) better yet...... > > >> > More generally, one has to wonder what inspires rebellion against > >> corrupt > >> > institutions and their "morality". I have spotted I am a moralist in > >> this > >> > sense. / Archytas > > >> > I have this notion, myself, that ethics or morality often (I avoid > >> > "universals") can be seen to gravitate toward what "works" or what is > >> > "better" in many senses, be it for the individual or for the society of > >> > individuals.... there seems to be a "pragmatic" component to Ethics or > >> > Morality... Of course.. that pragmatism depends on a value judgment, > >> too... > >> > an "interest" that can be singular or "shared"..... the "shared" > >> interests > >> > tend to win out in a pinch.... but often it takes a tussle...So, a > >> > rebellion against a "corrupt" institution seems to rely, often, on the > >> fact > >> > that the institution is not working to or up to those shared interests > >> of > >> > the majority of individuals around....maybe it (the institution) isn't > >> > "shared" enough in its applications... maybe it favors the "interests" > >> of > >> > the few over the interests of the many....that is often the way it goes > >> in > >> > rebellions.....they are all too plain... everybody knows what the > >> problem > >> > is.... hence the revolution (HAR). > > >> > There are many good reasons to recognise and suppress the barbarian > >> > temperament. / Archytas > >> > Sexual mores are tough.... I have thought of and recognized sexual > >> thematic > >> > dialectics in the works of others, You are right, in these matters, > >> there > >> > are plenty of "moral" taboos (which make eminent sense, often) and they > >> > often get transgressed....incest, first-cousin marraiges,slashing our > >> > private parts to simulate menstruation to rid ourselves of dreaded > >> effects > >> > of sex with women or sending our daughters out to suffer group rape to > >> > satisfy our "honour", cultural relativism.... all of that.... tough.... > >> but > >> > I would suggest that these sexual "moral" issues, like all the rest... > >> go > >> > through the "rebellion" cycle.... sooner or later (often depending on > >> > culture) even these tough issues tend to sort out.....Case in point, > >> not > >> > all that long ago, homosexuality was considered as part and parcel of > >> those > >> > moral sexual taboos..... > > >> > We need some kind of meta-analysis - in process philosophy the ground > >> is > >> > always, potentially, up for review. Science has "parology". / > >> Archytas > >> > Yeah.... I think I agree with that.... (I say , dumbfounded, pointing a > >> > finger {humbly} at nominal9 thematic dialectic logic... HAR) > > >> > Much as we want to protect against child > >> > abuse, we should want to defend against the economics of the Undead - > >> > which I would see as allowing such abuse under a complex and false > >> > show of morality. Austerity shits on the poor in order - er - to > >> > improve their lot through love love. Any ideology will do - as Soviet > >> > Paradise and Mao demonstrated - and the rich have since history began. > >> ? > >> > Archytas > > >> > Any comment to that on my part would be.... useless.... total > >> agreement, > >> > could'nt put it better. > > >> > transparent money / Archytas.... > >> > I'm interested in that notion... can you give me an education? > > >> > There are answers we could try and some small pockets of cooperative > >> > living./ Archytas > >> > You know my heart is with "cooperation"......but sadly, I think we both > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
