Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

A Different Kind of State

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 3:40:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The state is often defined as a monopoly on force. So this may not even technically be a state. But it acts like one.

What if the corner stone of the state was not a police force but a nationalized bank? And the only powers that the government has stem out of that. With a police force as the cornerstone, their method is to force things. With a bank as the cornerstone, their method is to buy things. The state does not exist through owning the most fire-power but through a consensus of the people that the bank notes have worth and are the legitimate currency. At any time, if the state goes out of control, the people can decide to stop accepting the banks currency and the state will collapse.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 3:50:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 3:40:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The state is often defined as a monopoly on force. So this may not even technically be a state. But it acts like one.

What if the corner stone of the state was not a police force but a nationalized bank? And the only powers that the government has stem out of that. With a police force as the cornerstone, their method is to force things. With a bank as the cornerstone, their method is to buy things. The state does not exist through owning the most fire-power but through a consensus of the people that the bank notes have worth and are the legitimate currency. At any time, if the state goes out of control, the people can decide to stop accepting the banks currency and the state will collapse.

You just described a bank with a natural monopoly. Natural monopolies, as opposed to government and geographic monopolies, require customer satisfaction in order to maintain their monopoly. They have a monopoly because their quality of service, and reputation is so superior to any other company, that the other companies can't compete.

In the case of Government monopolies, the government outlaws competition, granting sole business rights to one entity.

In the case of Geographic monopolies, if there is no competition in the geographical area, a company gains a monopoly in that industry for that specific area.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 3:53:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A natural banking monopoly does not serve the purpose of government. The purpose of government being the protection of their citizens' life, liberty, and property.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 3:58:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 3:53:00 PM, DanT wrote:
A natural banking monopoly does not serve the purpose of government. The purpose of government being the protection of their citizens' life, liberty, and property.

The bank would pay for protective services.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 4:50:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 3:40:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The state is often defined as a monopoly on force. So this may not even technically be a state. But it acts like one.

What if the corner stone of the state was not a police force but a nationalized bank? And the only powers that the government has stem out of that. With a police force as the cornerstone, their method is to force things. With a bank as the cornerstone, their method is to buy things. The state does not exist through owning the most fire-power but through a consensus of the people that the bank notes have worth and are the legitimate currency. At any time, if the state goes out of control, the people can decide to stop accepting the banks currency and the state will collapse.

Very interesting. But you said it at the very beginning - this wouldn't really be a state. A state is defined by its monopoly on the use of force against its citizens, and exemption from competition/laws of supply and demand. By the second part I mean it can run up trillion dollar debts and deficits, though no private business could do this, because the government can always just take more money from its citizens, where private businesses must please the consumer.

If the currency was backed by something legit, meaning not the fiat currency we have now, and if competing currencies were legalized, I would think it's a pretty cool idea. Certainly the bank should be prevented from inflating the currency into nothingness and trying to print the country into prosperity.

Basically, I'm down with any institution that doesn't have a monopoly on the use of force and isn't exempt from competition. Granting government the first part allows for tyranny, and granting them the second allows for inefficiency.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 7:59:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 3:40:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The state is often defined as a monopoly on force. So this may not even technically be a state. But it acts like one.

What if the corner stone of the state was not a police force but a nationalized bank? And the only powers that the government has stem out of that. With a police force as the cornerstone, their method is to force things. With a bank as the cornerstone, their method is to buy things. The state does not exist through owning the most fire-power but through a consensus of the people that the bank notes have worth and are the legitimate currency. At any time, if the state goes out of control, the people can decide to stop accepting the banks currency and the state will collapse.

The problem is that whenever the government tries to do something non-law/police related (like establish businesses) people scream socialism. See, a bank based government is fine, but the people are going to want a government involved in law.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 8:53:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 3:40:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The state is often defined as a monopoly on force. So this may not even technically be a state. But it acts like one.

What if the corner stone of the state was not a police force but a nationalized bank? And the only powers that the government has stem out of that. With a police force as the cornerstone, their method is to force things. With a bank as the cornerstone, their method is to buy things. The state does not exist through owning the most fire-power but through a consensus of the people that the bank notes have worth and are the legitimate currency. At any time, if the state goes out of control, the people can decide to stop accepting the banks currency and the state will collapse.

Lol, are you a conservative republican?

"So... clearly, we can't have 50 central banks."
"Well... what if we just had one, and made it federal, with state control over how much printed money is disseminated throughout each?"
"Word, that's brilliant! We'll call it..."
"Let's call it the Federal Reserve. That way, it will have federal centricism without being an outright bank. We can leave the rest to the conglomerates."
"Yes! It shall be done!"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 11:17:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Interesting idea. If one organization had total control over the money supply, even if it were a "natural monopoly", then the organization would have a lot of power.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Aayu
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 12:23:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 3:58:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/20/2012 3:53:00 PM, DanT wrote:
A natural banking monopoly does not serve the purpose of government. The purpose of government being the protection of their citizens' life, liberty, and property.

The bank would pay for protective services.

Which implies that the protective services would be privatized?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 3:05:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 4:50:32 PM, jat93 wrote:
Very interesting. But you said it at the very beginning - this wouldn't really be a state. A state is defined by its monopoly on the use of force against its citizens, and exemption from competition/laws of supply and demand. By the second part I mean it can run up trillion dollar debts and deficits, though no private business could do this, because the government can always just take more money from its citizens, where private businesses must please the consumer.

If the currency was backed by something legit, meaning not the fiat currency we have now, and if competing currencies were legalized, I would think it's a pretty cool idea. Certainly the bank should be prevented from inflating the currency into nothingness and trying to print the country into prosperity.

Basically, I'm down with any institution that doesn't have a monopoly on the use of force and isn't exempt from competition. Granting government the first part allows for tyranny, and granting them the second allows for inefficiency.

I would suggest that the way the state make revenue is through printing some money to start with which it would then use to buy regular means of making a profit like anyone else would.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 3:09:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 7:59:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The problem is that whenever the government tries to do something non-law/police related (like establish businesses) people scream socialism. See, a bank based government is fine, but the people are going to want a government involved in law.

True, it would be difficult to get people on board. But once it is done, I doubt they would put enough effort into stopping it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 3:09:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 11:17:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Interesting idea. If one organization had total control over the money supply, even if it were a "natural monopoly", then the organization would have a lot of power.

Right. It would be a virtual state.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 3:10:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 12:23:44 AM, Aayu wrote:
At 6/20/2012 3:58:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/20/2012 3:53:00 PM, DanT wrote:
A natural banking monopoly does not serve the purpose of government. The purpose of government being the protection of their citizens' life, liberty, and property.

The bank would pay for protective services.

Which implies that the protective services would be privatized?

Sort of. They would be working for the government but they can be private in the sense that the government is just their customer.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord