Water Money

Paradox: by bonding itself to the public interest a government is getting out of the public's way.

By "bonding" we mean contractual bonding, in the same way that a government bonds itself to private banks through "government bonds". In our paradox the government would be outlawed from bonding itself to private banks, for that is nothing other than to enslave to debt the future (and present) generations of its country.

In the "old days" our paradox was typically referred to as "protection". The protection works both ways. Not only is the public interest protected, but they are protected from undue government interference in the very same stroke, because by "bonding" itself to the public interest, by way of the mutual contract of money issued to the commonwealth through infrastructure, the government is bonding itself away from wastral bureaucratic projects - such as, for instance, wasting 300 billion gallons of water on an endangered smelt (the fish is still endangered by the way). In which case, as we presently see, farmers have to bulldoze half their citrus trees and others go out of business.

And a government comes from a society, even when the electoral process is a mockery.

In other words, a society could function without private banks. They are just a commercial business. One could argue that they are inevitable, sure. But a society could function without them. But to even use the word "society" implies government of some kind. In other words, banks are just banks, but a government is essential.

So when people talk about "big business and big government" like they were just two equal entities merely because they were equally corrupt have not thought things through.

Which means pretty well that all the major Catholic writers out there in internet land are, for the most part it would seem, on this subject, quite content with the wall of "lies and bribes and dead men's bones", as long as their ideas can be kept up as sorts of hobbies without the threat of being translated into reality.

Anyways, one could not come up with a better example of the need for transparently controlled, government debt-free money, spent into existence, than the water system of California.

What is the first result of a government proposing debt-free infrastructure projects as the means of issuing the country's money into existence? That which is most essential in terms of infrastructure for the flourishing and well-being of society come to the fore to occupy the government's energies. Right there, you have broken the back of bureaucratic entanglements. The government is "squaring" with the people. This is actually the only way in which you will ever have less government.

What is the result of the most essential structures (like water systems) being made evident, both in terms of completion and in operating function by way of debt-free government-issued money? The unburdening of productive capacities, which can then transact in an economy that has velocity rather than delay. In other words, by not being burdened by debt. In a debt-money economy like ours, you may not be burdened by debt, but in some convoluted indirect way you are, or will be, because someone else is burdened by debt, and an economy is based upon transaction - far more in fact than it is based upon capital. For capital is based upon the occurrence of transaction. Value is decided via transaction, not vice versa. A transaction completed is the evidencing of value, and thus of capital. You have bushels of wheat you have no intention of selling but you want to know their value? Right there, you have already assessed them according to the incentive of a future transaction - even though you have no intention of transacting with them. Yep.

You see, people just don't seem to get the part about a government spending the money into existence. It's a transaction. It's acutely different to merely giving it out, which is welfare. And far more acutely different to "borrowing" it into existence at interest and then giving it out, which is plutocracy carried out through a middle-man, the government.

There is something important about it, and I am repeating what I wrote above: because the government spends the money into existence (through, for instance, infrastructure), the government thereby cuts off its own power to dictate to people how they are to spend that money. Because the government has already done that - spent it. (And that is power to the people.) That is the definition of being spent: you received something in return, and what you gave is totally out of your ownership and say. Whereas with welfare, there is no objective sundering between parties. That's not to say that welfare is de facto enslaving of parties; the Church practices the charity of welfare without enslaving. In a government's hands though that just doesn't work so well. And that's because a government has a different purpose, not because a government is de facto enslaving.

The government needs to have an objective end to which the power it exercises by issuing money comes to a contractual breach. There must be a fundamental meeting and sundering. After which there is a mutual contract, the burden of which rests upon the government, and the overseer of which is the public. (The government's end of the mutual contract carried forward and honoured is the transparent control over quantity, which the public oversees. The government is thus rendered vulnerable to the wrath of the public, but also rendering its most positive value: that of protecting and making incentives towards the common good and the commonwealth.) This must be the first primary transaction, or primary transactions, from which an economy proceeds. There is no such thing as an economy not proceeding from a primary transaction. Economies are not based on some isolated, intrinsic value. They are based upon a single, primary transaction.*

Presently, the primary transactions from which our economy proceeds are transactions done in the dark, and not done with the public, in its interest, but are done with private banks, in their interest.

In our truth-bearing paradox of government bonded to the public interest, you would see, very much overnight, a consuming economy becoming a producing economy - that is, producing stuff that people actually need and want, not useless crap. You would also see a booming democracy of innovations, inventions, ideas. And I say "democracy" because those inventions, innovations, ideas would not remain on back-burners but would be self-actively implemented - indeed, practically in the sense that the ease given by monetary lubrication would seem to bring such things out.

Farmers in California are paying astonishing sums of money for...water: something that falls from the sky.

Gold standard - yeah, right.


*--This is where your friendly major Catholic writers start howling about you being a spawn of the dictatorship of relativism and a child of the Enlightenment. ROFL!