On Wed, 7 May 1997, Tresy Kilbourne wrote:

> Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> >A banking system could be devised with the authority to issue some sort
> >of secure income for *living* to everyone. It is NOT necessary to use the
> >federal government to extract money from people (in the form of taxes) to
> >pay for such system of secure income.

> Sorry, I can't see that. The reason money is a medium of exchange is
> because it has value.

Yes, but is only a symbol of something that is valued by both parites in
the exchange. It could symbolize the value of anything, or any
activity. The person (or institution)who issues and gives the
money-symbol in exchange for something, or some activity, is symbolically
declaring that they are in debt to the receiver. How the debt is settled,
or whether there really is a debt, can be determined by both parties
outside of any contractual framework. If both parities were unable to TRUST
each other,then they would both sign a contract to help resolve any
future disputes.

However, currently the problem is that banks monopolize both the
production and *meaning* of such symbols. Individuals currently have no power
to issue their own meaningful money symbols. Our ability to freely enter into all
ALL sorts of personally meaningful debt relations is thwarted by the
banks. The current banking system is constantly pushing us into social
interactions we would not otherwise choose.

In a *free* soceity, money should only begin to *circulate*, if the
community of individuals who will be exchanging it, have established a
*consensus* on what "value" the money will symbolize.

I've got more to say, but I have to go for the time being.

Harry