Lysander Spooner is probably one of the greatest Americans you never heard of. He was what we today would call and anarcho-capitalist, and I've been reading him in relation to banking. He was very well known in his time.
All of his works are amazing to read, if for nothing else to see what people argued over 150 years ago. Today we cannot imagine there was ever a time or place when people discussed right and wrong, or the role of government.
As an anarchist Spooner simply did his own thing, becoming a lawyer without going to school (still allowed in Washington State) but skipping the 5 year apprenticeship required by law. His arguments were so effective the State of Massachusetts had to rewrite the rules to accommodate him. Can you imagine today a state ever changing rules to meet logic and right? He lays waste the arguments for state licensing.
He saw no reason for the monopoly on mail, so he set up as a competitor to the US Post Office. He was quite successful, but of course as is to this day, the Feds were too big to fight. The Feds of course adopted all of his popular ideas, and then ruined them. Today we have people who tried to set up alternatives to the internet who have met more harsh treatment. Whereas government once would at least argue, now it is "off to prison" with you.
His particular book I am reading now on banking was written in 1873, and his advice was eventually embraced, extended, distorted into what we have today. He would be appalled at what happened to his ideas. The book was in response to the scorched earth policies of the republicans (today embraced by democrats too) on the South, and how to introduce capital and competition.
Think if you owned a $250,000 home free and clear. The you might create a title to monetize your house at say $200,000. Warranted by this title, you would issue $200,000 worth of currency, in 1, 5, 10, 20 and 100 notes. Then you could spend it, how?
Say farmers are started to grow wheat down the road. There is no mill close by. Locally y'all will do well if there is a mill close by. So you spend the $200,000 buying land, hiring builders, hauling in a millstone, hiring architects, and get the mill built. Now in essence, where there was just once a house, now there is a house and a mill. Where you once owned a house, now you own a mill, and all of the people who took your currency now have claim on your house, so you live in the house, but do not own it free and clear any more. It has more moving parts, but over time the mill generates profits which you use to extinguish your debts, that is the currency you lent out against the value of your house.
He notes the obvious, that in an economy gold and silver as money is very little used. It is credit that builds communities, and lack thereof that stifles them. Access to credit is how the bankers control who wins and who loses in USA. Who can issue currency is strictly controlled, and the same elite force (Secret Service) that protects the currency "protects" the president (although they tend to be notorious whoremongers, substance abusers and keep the president in line for the bankers by allowing scary people to get near the president.) Spooner asks the obvious question "Why do we allow the government to control banking?" In fact the legal fiction is we do not, that the Federal Reserve System is a private corporation, owned by its members. It is a monopoly, and its owners do not allow it to be audited. It's credibility is backed by American threat of force worldwide.
There is nothing new in his ideas, except to say it was not allowed. It is now allowed, indeed, maxxed out, embraced and extended into lending mostly against no assets whatsoever. By giving government backing, that is violence, to support lending against no assets, there has been no logical limit to what we can do. And we have decided to make wars, debilitate segments of society, pollute, ad nauseum. Spooner knew you could not trust government to get anything right.
Banking has a fascinating history in USA, and Spooner does a great job of breaking down the raison d'etre of the USA to banking and bankers' central role in control and exploitation.
Spooners arguments were consistently admired by his opponents. He got as far as he could, and it is an eye opener to read the quality of the arguments back then. Wish we had more people who could argue and think today. Wish that people gave anarchy serious consideration.
I part ways with Spooner as he makes usury central to this system, when it is simply not necessary. He does not make it mandatory, and maybe he was being polemical by including it. But if he supports it, then that makes him an anarcho-capitalist, not a straight anarchist.
This edition is a reprint, and not stellar, but readable, and valuable for a experience of time and place, back when USA and Hong Kong seemed so much more alike, closer to the roots of both.
A New Banking System The Needful Capital for Rebuilding the Burnt District
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
All of his works are amazing to read, if for nothing else to see what people argued over 150 years ago. Today we cannot imagine there was ever a time or place when people discussed right and wrong, or the role of government.
As an anarchist Spooner simply did his own thing, becoming a lawyer without going to school (still allowed in Washington State) but skipping the 5 year apprenticeship required by law. His arguments were so effective the State of Massachusetts had to rewrite the rules to accommodate him. Can you imagine today a state ever changing rules to meet logic and right? He lays waste the arguments for state licensing.
He saw no reason for the monopoly on mail, so he set up as a competitor to the US Post Office. He was quite successful, but of course as is to this day, the Feds were too big to fight. The Feds of course adopted all of his popular ideas, and then ruined them. Today we have people who tried to set up alternatives to the internet who have met more harsh treatment. Whereas government once would at least argue, now it is "off to prison" with you.
His particular book I am reading now on banking was written in 1873, and his advice was eventually embraced, extended, distorted into what we have today. He would be appalled at what happened to his ideas. The book was in response to the scorched earth policies of the republicans (today embraced by democrats too) on the South, and how to introduce capital and competition.
Think if you owned a $250,000 home free and clear. The you might create a title to monetize your house at say $200,000. Warranted by this title, you would issue $200,000 worth of currency, in 1, 5, 10, 20 and 100 notes. Then you could spend it, how?
Say farmers are started to grow wheat down the road. There is no mill close by. Locally y'all will do well if there is a mill close by. So you spend the $200,000 buying land, hiring builders, hauling in a millstone, hiring architects, and get the mill built. Now in essence, where there was just once a house, now there is a house and a mill. Where you once owned a house, now you own a mill, and all of the people who took your currency now have claim on your house, so you live in the house, but do not own it free and clear any more. It has more moving parts, but over time the mill generates profits which you use to extinguish your debts, that is the currency you lent out against the value of your house.
He notes the obvious, that in an economy gold and silver as money is very little used. It is credit that builds communities, and lack thereof that stifles them. Access to credit is how the bankers control who wins and who loses in USA. Who can issue currency is strictly controlled, and the same elite force (Secret Service) that protects the currency "protects" the president (although they tend to be notorious whoremongers, substance abusers and keep the president in line for the bankers by allowing scary people to get near the president.) Spooner asks the obvious question "Why do we allow the government to control banking?" In fact the legal fiction is we do not, that the Federal Reserve System is a private corporation, owned by its members. It is a monopoly, and its owners do not allow it to be audited. It's credibility is backed by American threat of force worldwide.
There is nothing new in his ideas, except to say it was not allowed. It is now allowed, indeed, maxxed out, embraced and extended into lending mostly against no assets whatsoever. By giving government backing, that is violence, to support lending against no assets, there has been no logical limit to what we can do. And we have decided to make wars, debilitate segments of society, pollute, ad nauseum. Spooner knew you could not trust government to get anything right.
Banking has a fascinating history in USA, and Spooner does a great job of breaking down the raison d'etre of the USA to banking and bankers' central role in control and exploitation.
Spooners arguments were consistently admired by his opponents. He got as far as he could, and it is an eye opener to read the quality of the arguments back then. Wish we had more people who could argue and think today. Wish that people gave anarchy serious consideration.
I part ways with Spooner as he makes usury central to this system, when it is simply not necessary. He does not make it mandatory, and maybe he was being polemical by including it. But if he supports it, then that makes him an anarcho-capitalist, not a straight anarchist.
This edition is a reprint, and not stellar, but readable, and valuable for a experience of time and place, back when USA and Hong Kong seemed so much more alike, closer to the roots of both.
A New Banking System The Needful Capital for Rebuilding the Burnt District
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment