persuasion

Back on April 14th Eric Harris-Braun wrote to me in part:
“....I thought I'd point you to my latest writeup on open money: http://openmoney.info I think you might be most interested in the theory page, ....

As it turned out, this email came in on a partially forgotten account, so I didn't even see it until June 21st (over 9 weeks later). Embarrassed, I apologized for the delay; and then continued:

“Interestingly, I'd been thinking about you recently and just a few days ago I was going through much the material on your WEB sites (I even logged into my account at http://alpha.openmoney.info/om.cgi). And yes, I actually did read with much interest your "theory page". In fact it was the most intriguing document I came across that day. So let me recount my most notable impressions:

1. You open with an introduction on the Tradeable - Measurable - Acknowledgeable paradigm. I needed to reread and wrangle with it a bit to get this new perspective into focus. However it was worth the effort and could possibly provide the basis for some valuable elaborations. It's when one gets into rewriting a piece that you really need to devote maximum effort to do the concepts justice and hopefully come up with a real contribution.

2. Regarding concepts such as “Wealth Acknowledgment” and your interest in setting the stage where the creativity of others can extend our horizons beyond anything we have yet considered — these are things I relate to instantly. Many of your objectives are so much in accord with my YeNom idea that it's almost eerie.

3. There is, I propose, a extremely pertinent & significant factor that desperately needs recognition in your theory page. A lot is said regarding the scarcity of money and your/our proposal to eliminate that scarcity through the creation of (local) currencies. However, the crucial thing that is left unsaid (and will likely make readers uncomfortable on at least a subconscious level) regards misgivings about possible inflationary factors. I think it is worth addressing this issue head on. The two main distinctions between the proprietary money supplied by governments and the type we want to create is a) what is being monetized, and b) how it is introduced into circulation. In the first instance, government debt is the preferred poison. I'd even argue that the very foundation of such a system is consequently a form of anti-wealth, with more & more debt not being a positive thing. The basis of our systems lie essentially in promises of individual personal performance insured by the issuers best interest to maintain a respectable reputation. And the more we have of this is a positive thing. Another night & day difference exists with the methods of introduction. In the former, money is injected into the economic area via bank loans (so it is never free and always burdened with interest). Plus it trickles down from the money moguls to the producers. Our alternative is the exact opposite of this! Not to mention that said debts (the fodder for their proprietary money) were created by the government to either fund their welfare programs (which essentially saps recipients' motivation for gainful endeavor) or, they are entering the market place to buy-up/divert labor and materials to satisfy their needs for arms, surveillance and policing (which of course tends to drive prices up). ......





”

That very same morning, Eric responded saying:

Blog wise, I've certainly not kept up with my duties and objectives. Instead of reducing the times between posts, it looks more like I'm hell bent on setting new records for falling behind (Dr.Alan posted apt comments regarding this).

I've just finished composing a more difficult than average article for my new 'EGO' page (which is essentially a plan to pay persons YeNoms for using my PUBLIC DOMAIN photographic files). I was intending, of course, to post a blog covering this new initiative after I'd actually made some photography publicly available. But then I noticed the date of my last entry here and felt a little sick. So to help feel better, I'm knocking this out posthaste with another post to hopefully follow soon. So far now, the text related my concepts on 'EGO' and the future is copied below:

The options sought for obtaining goals can be squelched by the social environment one operates in. It is, however, eminent that viable goal options will eventually emerge as society matures. The option I'm trying to nurture promises to free the creative ego from the current threats of institutionalized violence. If the meaning of an “Eminent Goal Option” is now clarified then click here to jump ahead - otherwise lets further examine this word for word.

The “Eminent”

The good news first. Excluding the outside chance of some glorious war and the wholesale devastation of the physical environment, our world is unstoppably spiraling toward ever enhanced levels of rationality and an unfolding utopia. This is no compliment nor show of faith in our species. Instead, it's a mere recognition of the basic fact that in due time and despite ourselves, superior results inevitably take hold over inferior ones. Capitalism's triumph over communism, had nothing to do with the effectiveness, validity nor vehemence of any rhetorical campaigns. It had to do with clean food in the mouth and fitting apparel for the ego. Likewise with slavery (past & present) in the ‘land of the free’. Lincoln's obsession was hardly bent on freeing anyone, but in maintaining the Union. Actually, considering the nonviolent intent of the South to simply secede, the North's reaction itself constitutes an act of aggression to subjugate (enslave) the South and strip her of any sense of self sovereignty. Hence field slavery failed on its own merits (without heroic outside force). That is, compulsory servitude doesn't work - at least not compared to the cotton gin or a farm combine. This of course, only begs the point that human slaves of whatever caliber cannot perform at the same level as liberated egos.