#83 Some Riegel Quotes Examined With Reference to This Blog's Proposal

E. C. Riegel

Source: These quotes were adapted from a copy of Free Enterprise Money by E. C. Riegel. We're expressing our thanks, ahead of time, for posting Riegel's work, as the more who find it, the better. This time I'm posting Riegel's remarks in plain, mine in bold.

If the government were obliged to come to the people for money instead of vice-versa, the people would keep government under control and operate their economy satisfactorily with prosperity and peace resulting. The peoples of the nations do not make war. For them peace is the natural and permanent order. Wars are planned and perpetrated by politicians and their diplomats; and the money power of government is the means by which the people are maneuvered into wars.

The emphasized above is literally impossible with THEIR money. It will only be accomplished through OUR money, when OUR money is the only money left. Understood? We can't afford to waste our time expecting anything to be any different using anything THEY have devised. As long as the money is literally not OURS, THEY shall have THEIR way and THEIR sway until THEY are exposed, deposed, etc. That would be as little our concern as possible. Political activism is more than a waste of time and effort, it's cooperating with our enemies. If you don't think you have any enemies, you're either some little lost lamb or you may have never stood for anything important in your entire life.

The second sentence says that all of us usually understand within our own social constructs what passes for SANITY and what does not. We do not require any “specialists” to inform us and usually they are either wrong or deliberate frauds themselves. There are possible exceptions to this of course; combat zones, everyday life under some totalitarian state, society among tribes of cannibals, etc. Likewise most of us go about our lives with the REASONABLE EXPECTATION of continuing peace. As a matter of fact, this amounts to a MINIMUM requirement for possible mastery of this subject matter; money. Isn't it remarkable that this human invention requires some thought above that of the illiterate savage? We could in fact rightly say that ANY system of trade using ANYTHING as money amounts to a quantum intelligence jump for even the average human. We hope and trust that there still remains a willingness to learn. Our present leaders only prefer that 90% of us should just drop dead, for the good of the planet? No, for THEIR good. This money issue is THAT important.

Money power cannot be separated from democratic power without miscarriage and ensuing frustration - political and economic. Democracy implies the sovereignty of man; and, since man cannot be sovereign without the money power, there can not be democracy under the political money system.

A few, a very few, have grasped this much. Bill Still, and others, remain attracted to the Lincoln greenback solution, which they claim preserves “civil society.” We have news for them; civil society existed and exists among the civil, as expressed in my remarks above concerning the quote which proceeded this one. We never would have entrusted the government with OUR fiat power to issue money had we known what we know now. There is in short, no reason to return to something that was tried and failed. Besides, we need to clear away much brush from people's minds concerning just what money is and what it is not.

That all said, what Riegel says about Democracy as he understood it, connected it with “the sovereignty of man,” specifies the individual man, not any state supposedly representing all “citizens” or “subjects,” for in that case the state itself is sovereign, as things exist now with all their various state sponsored and tax dodge institution sponsored, troubles. His and our ideal (this is dangerous ground) is a government that does very little and is very cheap because all the money to power it must come from US. WE decide to pay OUR money only for those things WE actually want and nothing else! That is the only real way to get any control over any government back in the people's hands, period. There is no realistic or rational argument to counter this.

The first cardinal truth of money is that no one, whether individual or government, can issue money without buying something. By inviting government to become a money issuer, we invite it to become our customer. Then we quarrel with it if it tries to buy something that we deem within the province of private enterprise.

Such as education, healthcare, housing, transportation, etc. etc. But the emphasized words above say exactly what we have always said; nothing actually becomes money until a human being issues it in lieu of barter. Whatever it is that is accepted in trade to spit barter, becomes money. It could be a coin, a piece of paper, a piece of cloth, leather, or even a rock. Now, just why would anyone take our money? Because they know places they can spend it. Is that clearly understood as well?

The second cardinal truth of money is that money must be backed with something, and the act of backing can only be the act of selling. Since we object to government buying and selling anything useful, but nevertheless insist that it issue money, we force it into boondoggling or public works that do not conflict with our private enterprise. Thus we compel government to issue unbacked money by making it impossible for it to sell anything in exchange for the money it issues. As this process of issuing unbacked money continues, each unit grows weaker and thus the dosage must be increased. Hedged about, as government is, by our objections to its invading private enterprise and yet keeping it under the pressure to issue money, it is ultimately forced to the most consummate public works spending program, which is war.

Understood? In the present system, by design, the war policies become a must, else the basis of the money itself makes the money worthless. But let's examine what Riegel says here; “money must be backed with something, and the act of backing can only be the act of selling.” We say that what backs a Valun spent for the V1 pen is the pen itself. Said another way, if you issue something, you must be willing to sell something back in return for the same money you issued. When you do that, you have closed a monetary circle and from then on, that money can claim backing for anything that it buys without causing inflation.

Another source of inflation is that the government, being the first and biggest spender, frequently buys at the high end rather than at realistically competitive prices, as is well known by anyone who has ever contracted with the government. By the way, Riegel said all this before 1953. 

Money is an instrumentality of the profit motive and must be issued and backed only by private enterprisers. Economic and political perversities are inescapable while government is admitted to money power. Since all national governments have, up to the present, been money issuing powers we may justly attribute all the economic and political ills of mankind to this single error.

Indeed and we have built on the implications stemming from this to provide a proposal for these times.

When government is invested with money power it rises above the citizen and under the profession of protecting him may actually constitute the greatest threat to his well-being and safety. The power which control of the money system gives to government to interfere in and direct and even take the life of the individual should not exist on this earth. No man or group of men is warranted in holding this terrible power over fellow men.

We will pardon Riegel somewhat for leaving out the central bankers and in fact all usurers. He knew something about them as revealed elsewhere, but as we've said all along, this blog is not a memorial to Riegel; a place where one goes to revere the works of the dead, as much as an up to date proposal based on Riegel's ideas.

Money power means budget power and it is folly to imagine that the citizen can control government unless he can control its budget.

Can you do this if the US Treasury issues the money rather than a central bank? Of course not. Please wake up Bill Still and others! We need you!

As long as we cling to the superstition that we must look to government for money supply, instead of requiring it to look to us, just so long must we remain the subjects of government and it is vain to follow this or that policy or party or ism in the hope of salvation. We can control government and our own destiny only through our money power and until we exert that power it is useless for us to debate the pros and cons of political programs.

Our proposal is in fact this radical. Our response to THEM is perhaps a bit Buddhist; let there be peace and harmony as we proceed non-violently to set up OUR own money and advocate its use. We will observe common understandings regarding SANITY and continue to live and work under the REASONABLE EXPECTATION of continuing peace. We do not require that OUR knowledge be subject to some state or any “specialists.” Let them go about their own lives without us. [6/30/20: Unfortunately, we have a little problem.  Recently the loser of the 2016 presidential election said that there would be no civility possible until her party regained power.  This remark amounts to taking off the gloves, because it calls into question whether when her party was in power that any civility was GENUINE on their part.  We have more reasons to doubt their sincerity every day.  It may be a foregone conclusion that the days when merely accepting someone's apparent niceness as sound business or social judgment, are over.]    

Money can be issued only in the act of buying, and can be backed only in the act of selling. Any buyer who is also a seller is qualified to be a money issuer. Government, because it is not and should not be a seller, is not qualified to be a money issuer.

It's pointless to ask the government not to be “socialist” if you have already “socialized” the issue of money. We've said as well that socialism always benefits THEIR monopolist friends and is the evil twin sister of capitalism, the making of money on money without working for it. Free enterprise is what each and every one of us does to make a living, to earn an income, as long as we don't work for a state agency, a corporation or a rich tax dodge foundation. If you work for any of those you do not experience free enterprise. We will make some allowances for some public employees, especially at the local levels, but nothing for any who work for corporations or foundations. We have our standards and for the time being they shall be honoured.

Political economy is a fiction. Economy can have but one sphere, namely, in the practice of the individual. Political economy implies that the state can have a separate existance as a creative force, whereas, it is but one of the instruments of the individual's economy. All wealth - all economic planning - can spring only from the individual for his private guidance; and in him resides both the political and economic power. The ballot is his instrument of political power; money his instrument of economic power and the former is futile without the latter. He is a dupe, who believes that government can be both his servant and his patron, i.e., that the state can develop an economy to enrich him. He must govern government as he governs himself; and he must provide for government as he provides for himself. Any power existing outside himself is only that which has been delegated by him, or has escaped from him; for he is the one and only power-house. He cannot delegate his money power, if he would, because it is inseparably linked to his buying wherein he must exert his private discretion. To issue money, one must buy, to buy, one must appraise. Hence, the money issuing power is undelegatable and unusurpable.

There's so much here that we're going to break it down to bite sized memes:

Political economy is a fiction.

We'll say it this way; there is in fact no “science” of economics as an academic discipline that deserves the name, fame or anything else. It's all rubbish intended to convince the gullible student of the magnificent wisdom of the present order of things and in some cases complete with offers to join the clique itself, or at least work for them at some low level unimportant position where that person gains “security” as long as they do as they're told. That doesn't sound much like freedom, honesty or truth, now does it? So the first thing you can do, if you still have any, is to sell or throw away all your economics books. They're largely absolute rubbish and can't help us out of our present situation. THAT INCLUDES THE SO CALLED “Austrians” OK?

Economy can have but one sphere, namely, in the practice of the individual

Here, Riegel identifies what he said earlier concerning Democracy; without “individual sovereignty” as a given, any “democracy” easily becomes mob rule or worse.

Political economy implies that the state can have a separate existance as a creative force, whereas, it is but one of the instruments of the individual's economy.

This is like asking whether a piano plays the pianist or vice versa. Only one of these can be a person; the pianist is a human being, the piano is a thing, an object. Now, just substitute government for piano and you get the message. The individual should, rarely but occasionally, have recourse to government services as one uses a post office for instance.

All wealth - all economic planning - can spring only from the individual for his private guidance; and in him resides both the political and economic power.

At his stage and in his time, Riegel understood wealth to have a far wider meaning than we ascribe to it. Nonetheless, he states that wealth can only spring from the individual “for his private guidance” and that can only be represented by profit and income. Therefore we assert congruence with Riegel concerning our contention that ultimately wealth cannot be wealth unless it produces income. Now that income could come after one harvests a field or sells a refurbished house. But if something just sits there and does nothing, regardless of who owns it, it does not represent wealth as we consider it. In fact, we observe that the inclusion of mere stuff and property as wealth may be deliberately misleading particularly as concerns how money actually disappears and requires replenishment.

The ballot is his instrument of political power; money his instrument of economic power and the former is futile without the latter.

Whose vote is it anyway? Since it's not YOUR TAX MONEY, sorry, then why vote? If you actually think that being a “taxpayer” means you have any say in what is decided, you have certainly not been paying attention and you really need to read the rest of this blog. 

[8/22/20: Unfortunately, perhaps the wrong impression was made here.  We certainly CAN influence things through voting, especially at the local level, and sometimes the stakes are so high that, where possible and if the elections are not cheated, that "the democratic process," though it may be as far from Riegel's ideal as we have already seen, must be resorted to by as many as possible.  Yes, your vote, if you are really entitled to that vote, is part of your inheritance.  So, how do you feel about someone else coming in and stealing or watering down your will and stealing your inheritance?  It's one reason we have our Domicile provision in our money proposal.  But those who have read the balance of this blog's posts would also understand that our will has already been stolen by THOSE who own all the money in use, INCLUDING PRECIOUS METALS AND CRYPTOCURRENCIES.  

Of the options available to preserve some of your purchasing power, we recommend stacking silver and gold coins, but remind you all that at any moment, THEY could use THEIR best credit risk customer, the government, to swoop in and give you whatever THEY decide to give you and take your silver and your gold.  Don't tell me it hasn't been done before, either.  Also, you should know that whether you decide to purchase gold or silver at this time, that THEY own the markets so THEY set the prices and what seems high at the moment may be the least you'd pay or the most you'd lose, since THEY can and have driven down precious metals prices before and may do so again based on whatever guidelines THEY follow.  See, you have NO control over it whatsoever, so please stop complaining.  Wake up!  IT'S THEIR MONEY, STUPID!

The proposed Valun on the other hand has already shown that it is more than capable of retaining its purchasing power and some future A membership contracts will include provisions that stretch back to the Valun's 1st inception point on 2 November, 2011.]      

He is a dupe, who believes that government can be both his servant and his patron, i.e., that the state can develop an economy to enrich him.

This is in fact the narcissist position, the belief that somehow each of us is some “special” person who the government actually “cares” about, etc.

He must govern government as he governs himself; and he must provide for government as he provides for himself. Any power existing outside himself is only that which has been delegated by him, or has escaped from him; for he is the one and only power-house.

The individual counts as he/she understands himself/herself. The real powers outside himself/herself are deliberately delegated to have certain powers over him/her. But these are all ideals at best, they do not describe what actually exists and all because it's THEIR money, not OURS.

He cannot delegate his money power, if he would, because it is inseparably linked to his buying wherein he must exert his private discretion. To issue money, one must buy, to buy, one must appraise. Hence, the money issuing power is undelegatable and unusurpable.

As we've said, the power for the individual to issue money ranks right in there with freedom of speech, press and assembly and those are meaningless without the power to issue money; this right is likewise inalienable; it cannot be given away, granted away, supposed away or stolen. Like it or not, this blog's proposal is in full agreement with Riegel.

As has been stated, the purpose of money is to split barter into two parts so that the seller is free to find his source of supply later and elsewhere. This is the sole purpose of money. Any effort to use money to serve another purpose is perversive; and this statement condemns the entire managed money philosophy.

Notice the intentional slight. Money managers make their pay for deliberately making wagers on the probable price changes of ephemeral commodities; securities, either as shares of ownership of these “bodies” but of their debt instruments.

We could have chosen any number of similar Riegel quotes. Other points dealing with implementation are where this blog's proposal updates Riegel's understanding and design. One cannot entrust any responsibility with any of the powers that be because they aren't supposed to have it. That's where Riegel can be criticized; his implementation attempted to solve THEIR problems for them and to help THEM as well as US. Well, we know better now and one lesson we've learned is that some things requiring OUR responsibility have to be done by US or they wont get done. What's next?

Discussion groups: It's time to use all the social media to find likely interested parties. We need lawyers and bankers (those who have seen the truth and left) as mush as we need everyone else.

The Valun Manifesto: Likely this would result from a conference that would accept this blog's proposal, set up the International Valun (or Value) Exchange Society and adopt certain signs and symbols, begin to print and circulate fliers, etc.

Start establishing Independent exchanges: To begin with, there may be one or two “node” exchanges that would help other neighbouring areas get up and running, etc.

The circulating Valun becomes a reality.

Notice, we said that our proposal has the ability to ultimately end poverty and war and we meant it. No one else could even dream of promising such a thing from changing to their idea of a substitute money. Our proposal has many other benefits too.

David Burton
dpbmss@mail.com

Current Hypothetical Value of a Hypothetical Value Unit