Socialist States of America still not learning the lessons

[Skybird]

Hoppe often calls his idea for the future (of which he also says he is realistic enough to see that people will reject it since democracy is in their minds) natural order.

Natural order is what has run human interactions for the most of mankind'S time. It means direct trading between two private people who exchange items, because what you give away you value as lesser than what you negotiated to get in return. The other side sees it the same way, just it'S value-attribution is just 180° around.

Over time, the limits of this scheme became apparent, when you were dealing with trading items that could not be split in their value, hindering you from giving them to get something you wanted, but was of much lesser value. Like a barn for a can of milk, for example. Production cycles and trading schemes of higher complexity and order are not possible, and so civilizational development is not possible, because everybody is limited to what he can achieve with just his very own hands. You can do the work on a field that way. But you cannot build cathedrals over several centuries.

So people found that using intermediate trading items did the trick. You exchanged your one huge value item not for what you finally wanted to get, but for different items of smaller values, but in bigger quantities. These then were used to be trade for the final objects of desire.

Important for this was that these tool-items were available easily on the market of traders. In past times, it was salt, or tobacco. Rare furs. Then it became teeth by precious or rare or dangerous animals. Or snailS' houses or seashells that were collected on a line and were used like coins "on" a purse". Later, silver and gold became the most popular item for trading, because no matter whether you formed it in bars or coins or necklaces, the value is according to its weight, and thus the value does not change no matter in what form it is traded. So: money is nothing special: it is just like any other trading item, and it has a material value in itself. The latter is what makes todays paper FIAT money completely different from money founded on a gold standard. A state or a central bank cannot make real money. It cannot priodcue it by just printing it. Money - real money - is exclusively appearing from and on the free market, by being an ordinary trading good in demand. And that is also part of the natural order. Free tgrade between two free idnioviduals that negiatiate the conditions of their deal freely. Money being an freeely traded trading good only. No state needed. Especially no authority usurping authority that originally it does not have, and demands only to justify its own useless existence.

You do not need a state to oversee such trading, nor do you need a state to monitor the develoepment of currency value, to add money to the market, to put a foot on the brake, or whatever. In the past, coin-makers were private people. And the system worked. It worked much better than the sh!t we have today, this govenrment-created paper-ticket stuff that is no value money, but is just a debt bond without guarantee that you will get something for it - you are completely depending on the good will of the other owing you something when you want to trade your bond for a material value. If the other says No, there is nothingn you can do about it, your money is worthless then. Cannot happen with gold and silver coins - these are material value money.

It is argued that the only function of the state should be to service trade by protecting it against (criminal and military) aggressors and guaranteeing the right to hold private property. I have in an earlier post summarised how an insurance system providing both legal mediation and military protection services for a fee would both produce better quality in security services at lesser bureaucracy and lower costs than the state. The state as a territorial monopolist steals private wealth (taxes), legalises the crime (law-making) and does a poorer and poorer job in legal and policing services. Like any monopolist you see the porices going up with the quality offered declining. I must not explain that once again, even less so when some of the essay I lined explain it much better than I could in some lines. I think the model is worth to be given a try. It cannot become any worse than the mess we have now.

There are many implications and details that Hoppe adresses as well, one can get them when reading him a bit, many of them are vital elements to be considered: the need to cap undiscriminating migration for example (the clear conclusion there is that freedom needs discrimination), and what that has to do with street-building and access of owners to their property - and access by the state to their property. It cannot be my duty or interest to repeat them in same detail when it all is available, for free. Where question arise, I can try to answer them within the standards of a forum entry. For more specific stuff, read the man himself. I said it before, and say it again: Hoppe to me is best where he attacks, where he establishes the diagnosis of the many bad things and what goes wrong, and where he demonstrates why they necessarily MUST go wrong in a democratic system. Here he is feared because he is hard to be shown wrong. The alternative he offers is unusual, maybe even contra-intuitive when looking at it from a socialist or democratic perspective. But it makes sense when putting it all together. There are criterions though that must be met: self-governing communities must stay small (city states for example), and the insurance companies must be of a size where they can guarantee their services even against agressors, nevertheless they must be subjected to any mans that safeguard against them turning into monopolists themselves and erect interlocal cartels. This is the greatest trick and the most critical detail in the model.

Our governments, democratically elected, mess up things, they lie and cheat and betray and make it worse and worse. We have no reason to trust them, when considering that it is not in the politicians' interest to look into the future, to free us from this suicidal currency madness that is the basis of their own power. Hoppe shows at some opportunities that it is in the interest of today'S politicians to have instabile, critical, endangered society status - to present themselves as the shining heroes solving the issues. The evil proverb says that politicians solve problems that without them would not even exist. I agree.

We must realise that olur political system and today'S fiscal order and perverted understanding of money is the reason and cause of our problems that nothing less than threaten the existence of the Western culture itself. If we contnue to follow these, we will fall for sure. The often claimed link between democracy and prosperity, is an illusion. Not only shows the present the prospering of regions and places and economies that are not democratically governed, nor is the prospering of nations in the past correctly attributed to their claimed democratic form of government. This claim is as wrong and malicious as the claim that without the Euro there would already be war in Europe, and that the freedom after WWII was only there becasue of the EU. That are lying stinking cheating lame self-justifications only. They do not meet historic or present realities.