By Duncan Whitmore

The recent resurgence of the dollar price of Bitcoin in tandem with a steady decline in that of gold presents us with an opportune moment to assess the quality of cryptocurrencies (CCs) as a potential monetary medium of the future. The question becomes all the more pressing once we remember that the current order of state induced inflationary finance is likely approaching its end, a prime factor in governments seeking to assert greater degrees of control over their populations.

Although this essay will mainly be sceptical of CCs as a monetary medium, we should remember that the primary concern of libertarians is with unshackling monetary control from the state, and, thus, in promoting the freedom of money. This means that the most suitable monetary medium should emerge from voluntary trading in the marketplace, in much the same way as language emerged as a result of individual people trying to communicate. Precisely which commodity/ies will be selected as a result of this process is of secondary importance. There is, therefore, no need for libertarians qua libertarians to be particularly fixated upon, for instance, either gold or the gold standard, as many are wont to do. While gold would be far superior to state fiat money, it is not without disadvantages for the consumer. In particular, the relatively high value of very small quantities of gold makes it less suitable for day-to-day transactions compared to, say, silver or copper. In fact, this circumstance meant that the shift, during the nineteenth century, to the predominance of gold as the monetary medium at the expense of other metals necessitated a much wider use of money substitutes (e.g. bank notes) and the consolidation of the metal itself in bank vaults, well out of the public’s hands. This paved the way to the complete severance of the substitutes from the gold that backed them, leaving us with the 100%, state controlled paper standard from which we suffer today.1 Circumventing this state control is the priority. If this is achieved by CCs rather than by gold or by any other precious metal then no crypto-sceptic libertarian should cut off his nose to spite his face merely because his personally preferred alternative to state fiat money has failed to gain preference. Continue reading

Money – the Key to Freedom?

Money – the Key to Freedom?

 By Duncan Whitmore

In a previous essay concerning the freedom of speech, we noted that, although liberty as a whole is justified by reference to the non-aggression principle, specific freedoms can and should be promoted in their own right. Equally and oppositely, so too should individual examples of state intrusion into freedom be criticised and condemned on their own two feet. In other words, it is possible, and indeed vital, for us to explain the value of free speech, to oppose taxation, to defend against any possibility of forced vaccination and medication, to press for abolition of all forms of state funded medical care, to argue for the freedom of association, to advocate for the legalisation of vices, to promote free trade, and so on. Such arguments are likely to win us at least partial victories in the fight for freedom, victories which may not be achievable simply by repeating the non-aggression principle.

Many of these individual freedoms are enunciated also in bills of rights and charters of so-called human rights, notably the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. Here we find, amongst others, the protection of the right to religion, to speech, to bear arms, to the security of property against searches and seizures, to silence and due process when accused of a crime, and from “cruel and unusual” punishments. The defence of many of these freedoms has now become especially crucial as Western governments have continually sought to dilute them, sometimes in response to crises and calamities such as Islamic terrorism, and other times as a natural consequence of the growth of the state. It has been recognised that the freedom of speech, in particular, has been subject to a grave assault from identity politics and “cancel culture”.

However, a notable omission in many of these schedules of rights and freedoms is the freedom of money. Money is mentioned in the US Constitution, but it is buried in Section Ten of Article One, which limits the rights of the states. It has no prestigious place within the more memorable Bill of Rights, and fails to illicit the kind of passion that surrounds the First and Second Amendments. Freedom lovers today, similarly, will complain about the loss of our freedom of speech and the seemingly sudden transformation of the country into a police state as the result of the government’s reaction to COVID-19. But they will rarely turn their attention to the fact that the state has the power to print its currency, a power which has only existed in its entirety since 1971 when US President Richard Nixon severed the final tie of the US dollar to gold. Continue reading

Economic Myths #5 – Banking is Capitalist

By both mainstream economists and the general public the cycle of “boom and bust” is believed to be a tendency inherent in any capitalist economy. The fact that the latest of such cycles, beginning in 2008 (and arguably not having ended), originated in the banking sector and that large banks and bankers ratcheted up huge earnings and bonuses only to cause disaster has implicated banking as representative of the very worst aspects of capitalism – the epitome of uncontrollable greed that ends in catastrophe.

Unfortunately this popular view of the mainstream could not be further from the truth. In fact, with its intimate ties to the state and its special, legal privileges it is hard to imagine a less capitalistic industry than banking. Part of the deception – wilfully inflamed by politicians and their lackeys – is one that engulfs other industries subject to state meddling such as utilities markets. This is the belief that, simply because the participants in the industry in question are private individuals or entities that are not officially part of the state, the enterprise must be classified as part of the free market and saddled with all of the supposed flaws of that system. Very often, however, private companies and brands are simply the public facade of what is essentially a state owned operation or state controlled cartel. Continue reading

I see that Gold is quite rocky, today…

David Davis

One of my pet achievements is to have been able to paste “widgets” such as the excellent Kitco charts that you see beside you on this sidebar. Not being a tech-guy, and not knowing even the square-root-of-effing-all about something called “HTML”, or even “cascading style sheets” (search me, guv!) I gave myself a pat on the back for these being on here at all.

It is an interesting and fun exercise to watch them, even down to the hour, as they react to what the loliticians on the MSM are saying and doing. Gold seems especially rocky today, I am not sure why, but it has not really tested the heights of the last week or fortnight or so. I wonder why it’s so jumpy, and yet not stratospheric? Can anyone enlighten us?

Gordon Brown and the Lost Gold

David Davis

It may all come out sometime, but I don’t think it will be soon.

You know something? Sometimes it is quite impossible for me to decide what the individual penalties ought to be, for deliberately carrying through a known and planned Act Of Destruction such as this.

The Poles, in 1945-46, at least got to hang hundreds and hundreds of minor socialist functionaries. The trouble is that they were hung by merely another sort of socialist functionary.

I can’t imagine anything we could do to Brown, Balls and Miliband and their Treasury apparatchiks, that could possibly atone for this amount of loss.

For them to say “Sorry” somehow does not cut the mustard.

We could make their eternal descendants pay, for ever and ever and ever, but this would begin to lose its meaning after a few hundred years and would merely become some sort of annual ceremony, the purpose of which has long been lost in legend by the MSM, such as the Armistice thing is going to be.

National Debts and a Tory Government

…or any for that matter, so long as it is not the GramscoFabiaNazis New Labour

David Davis

I am going to propose that an incoming Tory government state that it will repudiate all UK government debt incurred after the date and timestamp of the beginning of its conference and up to the time of a new government being announced next….election. AND furthermore, that neither capital nor interest on this debt will be honoured. This will concentrate lenders’ minds immediately as some will have been sold already, some will be in trading, and some will be comtemplated between now and say this Thursday. this will increase the value of the stuff already out there, which will become very heavily-bid, and will concentrate the minds of helot-voters in the “public sector”, whi will find their wages cheques dishonoured between  now and, well, whenever. Which is morally right.

Please read on:-

In a civilised society, it is right and moral to pay off debts, in due course, after they have been incurred. Insofar as libertarians believe that governments have some sort of de-facto legitimacy, and they might if either by consent of their electorates or by dint of the fact that we are for the time being stuck with them, then it is right for gvernments to make some sort of provision for repaying borrowings incurred honourably in the course of their “duties”. Since governments have no money of their own, this sadly has to be raised by taxation along with the “normal” course of expenditures.

But I now take  a different view about some of this National debt incurred recently: this is based on newer observations of acts against this nation which could, in certain lights, be construed as Acts of War.  A well-briefed Court-of-Enquiry – a “Star Chamber” if you will – might actually interpret their decisions and acts as treason, depending on where you stand regarding the relation between the English Sovereign head of State and the People, and which is actually more important jurisprudentially since 1215 and at various defining moments inbetween.

I now put it that the British Enemy Class, arising out of a mixture of corrupted-Christianity-turned-upside-down, self-generated-intellectual hubris, and misplaced condescension towards temporarily less fortunate classes in English Civil Society, has taken a conscious war decision against liberalism.

It has decided on purpose, at some time in the past 120 years and probably quite early on, to unravel liberal English civilisation and society, this stemming from its view that we are a nationalist nation, of wicked evil imperialist repressive globally-colonizing culturally-hegemonic white anglo-saxon male slave-traders-and-drivers. And anything else you care to name. It hates us, because by promoting the virtues of individual liberty and responsibility and also of Natural Rights, we as a civilisation have never hitherto failed to point loudly and visibly towards what I call “The Door Out Of Hell”,

It has tried, hitherto only more or less partially successfully, to dismantle parts of what it hates. Although the general trend of progressive big-statism did advance from about 1874 onwards as both liberals and Tories started to doze off, not very much damage was done to liberty except during and immediately after war years. It is true that some evil things were done: private firearms began to be regulated in 1922 – passports (French word too) were introduced – whole industries were stolen nationalised – the NHS was founded – education was tampered with – and so on.  But in general the rot took some time to set in, and the GramscoFabiaNazis were getting impatient. Too many of their older ranks were beginning to die, before being able to reap the imperial political rewards of their self-promotion as noble freethinking spirits. Like literature-writers of unreadably pretentious twaddle, “artistic” pornographers, child-rapists and cradle-snatchers positioned as “artists”, “educationists” and the like, “political philosophers”, “influential economists”, “admired playwrights”,and so on. The “movement”, the “project” was rinning out of time: new or invonvenient opponents kept suddenly popping up and exhibiting dangerously high amouonts of mass support, such as Reagan and Thatcher, and the populace showed marked disinclination to meekly toe the Gramscian hegemonic cultural line.

But never fear, for a few clever Enemy Class people had begun to subvert the Universities some decades earlier. By the 90s and 2000s, this tactical assault was to become very crucial.

All was ready for 1997 and Blair. John Smith (too “old labour”, too transparently honest not to dissemble in public and therefore a strategic risk) was got rid of – a strange heart-attack and no medical history of problems – and a top project-guy was put in (you can see the point of the Granita deal now). Brown wanted to mallet away too fast, and would have spoiled things, so he was asked to wait 10 years and his turn would come, by which time the “project” would be irreversible and he might do what pleased him. As he has done.

But even after ten years of Stalinism by 2007, and the pissing-away of the Gold, the savings, the pension funds and the day-to-day-revenue in the buying of a clientariat (a necessary but in itself an insufficient condition for success,) the fabric and economic structure of English society was still very strong. The rot takes time to set in. A reasonably quick cave-in seemed improbable. Something had to be done, and fast, to being about swift collapse of confidence and morale of the entire people, and of international confidence in the structure of our finances and banking industry, a major earner and secondary/tertiary empoyer and trigger of other businesses, especially small private ones (which would have to be destroyed in the wash-flood as they’d never vote for the “project”or its droids) via trickle-down.

So the failure of a minor Rotten-Borough-Bank (Northern Rock) could be used at the right time as a method of mis-managing a “banking crisis” triggerable on top of it, if it could be (mis)handled correctly. If done right, the State could say that “the taxpayer” (itself) was “baling out and preventing the failure of” (the State was nationalising”) our “national banking assets and industry (and jobs of course)” and “your money” (now its.)

Since by 2007, there were very few individuals alive on the planet who knew what “inflation” really is, “call for” “injection of” £££££trillions would seem to have nothing to do with inflating a money’s supply, and everything to do with “saving banks and jobs and the economy world”…”quantitative easing” was a dead-giveaway, surely?

In fact the true understanding of the word “inflation” is probably limited to the few thousand people on earth who read libertarian blogs, plus maybe a few City Analysts who keep quiet about it for safety reasons.

So where does that leave the “national debt” and the Tories (IF they are elected…) Since it has been inflated out of all proportion under false pretences and by a clique of evil reactionaries who want to undo Western Civilisation, those parts of it that correspond to what they’ve taken out in order to deliberately liquidate and beggar us here, should be disowned. I wonder if they’ll be brave enough to do it?