@neonsnake @violetmadder @CorvidCrone @KevinCarson1 @C4SS

Yes, in the US.

In the context of contemporary manifestations of currency and property, it's the guarantee of the State - e.g. the guarantee that contracts/debts/deeds will be enforced through overwhelming violence, ostensibly according to law of some kind - that underwrites them.

I use "guns" broadly;

@neonsnake @johnzajac @violetmadder @CorvidCrone @KevinCarson1 @C4SS tracking obligations is how societies get into trouble. No matter what systems for tracking obligations you adopt someone will successfully game it — to the point that, as we see now, the least deserving walk away with most of the wealth.

You can have property or you can have a good society. You can't have both.

@KevinCarson1 @johnzajac @violetmadder @CorvidCrone @C4SS

Kevin has put it into words better than I did, but essentially I believe that there is value in a mechanism of exchange (which does not have to be state-backed, and I think is better if it isn't, for all sorts of reasons), which I'm loosely terming "currency" - that term may not be the best, which I accept.

"Property" is more difficult - I 100% believe that people should have the right (however that right is enforced) to a private space; by this, *I* mean a house and a plot of land to call my own.

However, I cannot possibly cover all the nuances - someone in a city might only want an apartment and a balcony, for example, and the "appropriate" amount of land/space is inherently variable, depending on location etc.

Would I be prepared to use violence to defend my 10% of an acre? Yes, actually, I would.

And I'd also be prepared to use violence to defend my *neighbours'" 10% of an acre, because I feel that given where we live, it's a not unreasonable amount of land to claim for a family.

On the other hand, would I be prepared to use violence to defend the acre that a neighbour has claimed "over there", that is forests and fields, that I used to go foraging for blackberries in, and I used to sit on the riverbanks and pass the time?

lmao no, they're on their own on that one, and I'm too busy making blackberry jam anyway 😜

"Property" is hard, and the distinction between "personal possession" and "private property" can be a little slippery, but my general view is that people should have a right - again, how that is enforced is up for grabs - to a "personal place" to live. But I wouldn't protect someone's "right" to something like a common area, if they wish to charge people to use it and are not "using" it themselves.

I recognise that that is vague, but "property" is an inherently vague subject at the best of times, and does not lend itself to black and white rules.

@KevinCarson1 @violetmadder @neonsnake @CorvidCrone @C4SS

https://www.journeyman.cc/blog/posts-output/2014-03-18-a-circular-history-of-money/

https://www.journeyman.cc/blog/posts-output/2023-02-08-on-money/

@KevinCarson1 @violetmadder @CorvidCrone @C4SS

This is the bit where I get baffled.

I fully understand that at points in history, "money" has been backed by gold, silver, whatever. Ok, fine.

What I never understood is the people who thought that this was a *good thing*.

Making "money" scarce always baffled me as a concept, particularly when posited by people who...don't actually own any gold etc.