On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Ernie Yacub wrote:

> harry, i think you must have reviewed something entirely different...try
> http://www.gmlets.u-net.com/go/
>
> the fact that you call them lets schemes is a dead giveaway.

What I am saying is based on this site.

>
> when a person or a business takes out an account in a letsystem, they have
> effectively joined a trading network where interaction is by mutual
> consent.

Hpothetically and ideally, yes. What about people who are born into one?
(This is a fundatmental political problem which applies to all sorts of
communities, whether they call themselves "nations" or not.)

>
> when i buy a product or service from someone/business in the network, i
> have issued my own money by way of a promise to pay others in the
> network...no one can tell me what, when, or how to trade...no one.
>
> the community i have joined may decide that the product i am selling (eg
> guns) is not acceptable and close my account...in which case i have to go
> looking for a like minded letsystem or start my own.
>
> >I have reviewed the LETS schemes. As much as I admire the initiative, I
> >also feel that unless other reforms are implemented, it will sacrifice an
> >individual's liberty and freedom in favour of the "community".
> >
> >Basically, the system gives every community who chooses to adopt their
> >own currency, the financial status of "nation state".
>
> certainly not nation state status, only a common currency within a mutually
> agreed upon community which can be a city neighbourhood, a church
> congregation, a women's network, a youth sports league.
>
> you choose the networks/communities you want to trade in.
>

see my concern above.

>
> >Thus who ever controls the financing
> >of the community currency can control the nature of "outside" business in
> >the community.
>
> what financing are you referring to?
>
> >Thus an individual seeking to by "outside" products may
> >find it impossible, because outside suppliers refuse to pay the "taxes".
>
> what taxes?

Okay regarding taxes and financing, here is quote from "Contribution to
Community" from your site:

"We propose that it be established, simply by convention, that
participation by any business in any mainstream community currency system be
conditional on the business making a small but significant contribution to
the well-being of the community in which they will be trading."

"We suggest that each participating business should contribute to the
community the sum of #100 - #50 in conventional money and #50 in the
currency of the system that they are joining. For North America, a $200
donation is recommended".

"The Contribution to Community - CtC - must be donor directed. The
applicant business chooses, from a list prepared by the organisers of that
system, a local charity, community project or community banking fund to
receive its donation."

"The regional LETSystem Development Initiative will manage this programme
and distribute the funds raised to the charities and projects, and may
therefore deduct a commision for the service. The commision should be
limited to a maximum of 10% in large
population areas - such as major
city regions - where it can be predicted that most businesses
will in time open accounts in ten or
more systems. In rural or widely distributed regions, there is
justification for raising the commision to an upper limit of 20%"


There is nothing inherently disturbing about any of this. What really
bothers me is HOW this will all be brought about. Who will have say and
and will the freedom of the individual be sacrificed for the "well-being
of the community"? Of course the very same questions plague the
nation-state, which is why I made the comparison.

Harry Veeder