the linguistic isolating of justice from money

Various thalers from Germany and Austria with ...

Various thalers from Germany and Austria with size comparison to a United States quarter (bottom center). Clockwise from top left: Saxe-Altenburg 1616 Thaler reverse 1592 Saxony Three Brothers Thaler reverse 1701 Austria (Hall) Thaler of Leopold I (the Hog-mouth) obverse 1592 Saxony Three Brothers Thaler obverse Center: 1635 Austria (Hall) Double Thaler obverse. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

relocated to: https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/the-linguistic-isolating-of-justice-from-money/
Note that I address the origins of money here:
See also my website: www.OneEyedKingsWealthClub.com

3 Responses to “the linguistic isolating of justice from money”

  1. before language separated church and state « JRFibonacci's blog: partnering with reality Says:

    […] https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/the-linguistic-isolating-of-justice-from-money/ […]

  2. jrfibonacci Says:

    Troy replied promptly:

    Hi J.R. Hunn,

    Thanks for bringing the jrfibonacci blog article to my attention. I’m assuming it’s the work of Santos Bonacci whose work I have the utmost respect for. There is much sentiment in the article that I agree with, but feel I have to make a few comments in reply. If the following sounds terse, please forgive me; I simply want to be as unambiguous as possible and I mean no offence to yourself or Santos (if it is indeed him).

    ****

    Firstly, I think it needs to be pointed out that linguistic analysis must always take into account grammatical usage. It is agreed that “… There is no conflict between money and justice” per sé, as is rightly asserted in the jrfibonacci blog article; but that is not what is written in Saturn Death Cult.

    The conflict highlighted by Saturn Death Cult is in the love of money as opposed to the love of justice. ‘Money’ and ‘justice’ are respectively presented as the Object of the transitive form of the verb to love so as to form a shortened idiom. In the use of grammar when utilising linguistic units, it is commonly understood that parts of speech determine intent of meaning, and not necessarily or exclusively the choice of words — though those looking for root meanings as a kind of sub-intent may debate this.

    I believe the above comments renders the following conclusion found in the jrfibonacci blog as spurious.

    “There is no conflict between money and justice. That is like saying a conflict between the number 4 and all numbers or between blue and colors or between chair and furniture or between the Greek letter Psi and letters in general. Those who understand what language is are clear in these matters.”

    On why there is a conflict between a love of money and a love of justice

    As an opening statement I would say that the definition of money used by the jrfibonacci article makes the classic mistake of equating money with currency. Economists and academics alike vary in their definitions of what money is, but I will try to explain as we proceed the difference between what money is, and what currency is; this is important in understanding why a love of money is in conflict with a love of justice.

    Further more, there is a hint of confusion in the jrfibonacci blog as to the difference between the concept of Justice and the concept of Law. Justice is the application of Law, not Law itself. Even when expressed as linguistic units the former is predicated on the latter; they are not synonymous.

    It is fully recognised by me (Troy McLachlan) that the measure called ‘money’ is a subset of the overall set of weights and measures (statutes, rules & judgements) that make up the Law of a given justice system. However, when there is motive to illegally distort and apply a subset of weights and measures in contravention to an overall system of weights and measures, it can be claimed that the motive and its resultant actions are necessarily in opposition to the overall justice system.

    Consequently, it is only natural that those who seek to illegally apply a distorted subset of weights and measures within one section of a justice system will also seek to undermine the overall system of weights and measures in order to perpetuate their crime. In this case the rot starts within the justice system’s money subset, but is not necessarily caused by the said justice system. There is general agreement between myself and the jrfibonacci article on the role played by courts where such systems are compromised.

    The previous paragraph sums up the essence of the conflict portrayed by the idiom ‘the love of money’ being put in opposition to ‘the love of justice’. It is, in fact, the fundamental theme being explored by Saturn Death Cult. The argument is made that the so-called ‘love of money’ (taken from the Greek philarguria – meaning ‘avarice for silver) is the desire to gain subjective and independent control over the defining of what is accepted as a claim on any and all work done. The ‘love of justice’ however, is presented as a higher ideal to which money is subject to, and not independent of, the weights and measures that form the bedrock of the Law governing any justice system.

    The two concepts, expressed as idioms, are not presented in isolation, but as being in opposition ― again through the transitive use of the verb to love.

    The circular argument put forward in the jrfibonacci blog is that money is solely the construct of the courts; it is not — currency, and its role as a means of exchange, is the construct of the courts and currency should never be confused with money. In fact, the definition of money put forward in the jrfibonacci blog article is fundamentally flawed in that it makes the classic assumption that ‘money’ and ‘currency’ are synonymous. Money is a measure of productive labour; Currency is an expression and codification of that measure where it serves as a means of exchange. Thus, a currency can be under or without the jurisdiction of the courts, be legal tender or illegal tender, but if it is accepted in exchange for goods and services, then it is a representation of money.

    Again, let me reiterate: Money and currency is not the same thing. In the economic sense for which it serves, money is best defined as ‘a claim on work done’. Everything after that; the coins and rules dreamed up by kings and courts, et all, is ‘currency’ ― something that is merely the accepted or enforced physical expression and representation of ‘work done’. At its worst, currency becomes a money-defined control mechanism used to regulate that which can be used as legal tender.

    The truth about money is that it is merely a construct of any agreement where there is a need by a first party to make a claim on the productive labour of a second party. This can be achieved without courts through a simple and arbitrary agreement between the two parties as to what will be given by the first party (the price paid) in exchange for the first party’s claim over the work done by the second party. In its simplest form this type of monetary exchange is called barter. However, currency becomes necessary when multiple and diverse parties seek to make monetary-like exchanges, yet do not have the desired exchangeable goods or services required to secure those exchanges.

    The circular reasoning employed by the jrfibonacci blog to suggest that there is no such concept as ‘unjust money’ because it is always sanctioned as legal by its parent justice system comes undone when one simply uses the linguistic unit ‘unjust’ to also describe the governing justice system: Hence, ‘unjust justice’ = ‘unjust money’!

    Which brings us to the point where justice, as a concept, might be viewed by some as an absolute, but where justice systems as a whole are, in practise, rarely an absolute.

    With the above in mind, the love of money is really the love to make a claim on work done. Its root understanding and application is to be covetous.

    In contradistinction, the love of justice is really the love to provide accurate weights and measures in facilitating claims on work done. Thus the objects of the two ‘loves’ are mutually exclusive in effect, yet are united in deed by the creation of currency.

    However, a love of righteous justice (accurate weights and measures) should ensure a righteous currency that represents a fair and accurate measure of money (a claim on work done). When the love of the right to make a claim on work done overrides the love for accurate weights and measures, then this will lead to a desire to create an unfair advantage through an unfair and inaccurate measure of money. This will eventually corrupt the credibility of the overall weights and measures that define the rest of the justice system ― leading to ‘unjust justice’ via ‘unjust money’, and ultimately an unjust Law.

    Therefore, Saturn Death Cult employs the idiom of the love of money as a subset of actions within a judicial system which militates in opposition to the higher ideal of the love of justice proper. This distinction is entirely predicated on the motivating factors (to love) at work in establishing the various weights and measures (statutes and rules) that make up the laws of any given system of justice, from its overall application right down to the judicial subset called ‘money’.
    *****

    I hope that provides a different perspective. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks again for taking the time to contact me.

    Kindest regards,
    Troy McLachlan

  3. jrfibonacci Says:

    My reply back:

    >> TROY: Thanks for bringing the jrfibonacci blog article to my attention. I’m assuming it’s the work of Santos Bonacci whose work I have the utmost respect for. There is much sentiment in the article that I agree with, but feel I have to make a few comments in reply. If the following sounds terse, please forgive me; I simply want to be as unambiguous as possible and I mean no offence to yourself or Santos (if it is indeed him).

    JR: I do not know of Santos. The article is my own. J.R. “Fibonacci” names the same one as J.R. Hunn

    ****

    TROY: Firstly, I think it needs to be pointed out that linguistic analysis must always take into account grammatical usage. It is agreed that “… There is no conflict between money and justice” per sé, as is rightly asserted in the jrfibonacci blog article; but that is not what is written in Saturn Death Cult.

    The conflict highlighted by Saturn Death Cult is in the love of money as opposed to the love of justice. ‘Money’ and ‘justice’ are respectively presented as the Object of the transitive form of the verb to love so as to form a shortened idiom. In the use of grammar when utilising linguistic units, it is commonly understood that parts of speech determine intent of meaning, and not necessarily or exclusively the choice of words — though those looking for root meanings as a kind of sub-intent may debate this.

    I believe the above comments renders the following conclusion found in the jrfibonacci blog as spurious.

    “There is no conflict between money and justice. That is like saying a conflict between the number 4 and all numbers or between blue and colors or between chair and furniture or between the Greek letter Psi and letters in general. Those who understand what language is are clear in these matters.”

    JR: Well, I was saying that your comment is spurious. You create a conflict in language, like between the front of my hand and the back of my hand or between the love of language and the love of words.

    There is no such thing as justice except in language. There is no such thing as money except in language. There is no such thing as a conflict between loving dogs and loving cats except in language.

    TROY: On why there is a conflict between a love of money and a love of justice

    As an opening statement I would say that the definition of money used by the jrfibonacci article makes the classic mistake of equating money with currency. Economists and academics alike vary in their definitions of what money is, but I will try to explain as we proceed the difference between what money is, and what currency is; this is important in understanding why a love of money is in conflict with a love of justice.

    JR: You identify yourself in conflict with the love of one master instead of another. You conflict with one love in favor of another.

    The conflicting is not intrinsic or objective. The conflicting is relational and linguistic.

    TROY: Further more, there is a hint of confusion in the jrfibonacci blog as to the difference between the concept of Justice and the concept of Law. Justice is the application of Law, not Law itself. Even when expressed as linguistic units the former is predicated on the latter; they are not synonymous.

    JR: All concepts are just concepts. There is no actual conflict between concepts. There is no conflict between 1980 and January 9th, 1980. Or, to put it another way, the alleged conflict between concepts is just another concept- entirely valid as a concept, but of no special importance.

    TROY: It is fully recognised by me (Troy McLachlan) that the measure called ‘money’ is a subset of the overall set of weights and measures (statutes, rules & judgements) that make up the Law of a given justice system. However, when there is motive to illegally distort and apply a subset of weights and measures in contravention to an overall system of weights and measures, it can be claimed that the motive and its resultant actions are necessarily in opposition to the overall justice system.

    JR: A particular action of a justice system is never in opposition to the justice system itself. That is like saying that there is a conflict between walking in general and walking to the park in particular.

    Justice systems define justice. That is what they do. They set standards. Because they set standards, they can change them.

    As an analogy, let’s say that we measure length in miles, then change to measuring in kilometers. So what? Is that a distortion? NO!

    Currencies are created by justice systems as instruments of their operations of systematic redistribution of resources through coercion. When justice systems redistribute wealth through other methods, that is their administration of so-called justice. When a justice system declares that the property of a particular group is now the property of the court, that is their administering of justice.

    When Oliver North was pardoned after being convicted, that was the exercise of the privilege of presidential pardon. When political coups happen and then new rules are declared as retro-active, that is politics as usual, too.

    There is no standard of justice outside of language or court operations. Likewise, there is no objective “best unit” of measuring length (miles VS kilometers). There are just standards used within particular contexts or jurisdictions.

    The idea that Law and Justice are functionally isolated is a delusion. There is no system of Law except in the administering of standards. English words like Law and Justice are also completely unimportant, as the words could be translated and it would make no difference in France or in Spain or in Russia.

    Law and Justice are just words. Courts define words. Courts create linguistic units like Law and Justice and the courts use organized coercion to enforce their declarations, claims, proclamations, standards, “colorable” legal fictions, etc….

    TROY: Consequently, it is only natural that those who seek to illegally apply a distorted subset of weights and measures within one section of a justice system will also seek to undermine the overall system of weights and measures in order to perpetuate their crime.

    JR: Crime and criminalization are not fundamental to nature. Court officers criminalize and decriminalize various patterns of behavior, including in the example of Oliver North being pardoned.

    TROY: In this case the rot starts within the justice system’s money subset, but is not necessarily caused by the said justice system. There is general agreement between myself and the jrfibonacci article on the role played by courts where such systems are compromised.

    JR: What are you referencing by “compromised?” Changes in the standards dictated by courts? They made up the standards by dictate, so why not change them?!?!

    You seem stuck in the basic myths of the conceptual system of Babylon, Troy. There is no “real” justice outside of a particular language. You have been influenced by the propaganda of “what to condemn” and you have been loyally condemning as you have been trained to do.

    The core indoctrination of propaganda indoctrination is that propaganda indoctrination should not exist and is evil. I like to say it this way: “reverse psychology should not exist.”

    TROY: The previous paragraph sums up the essence of the conflict portrayed by the idiom ‘the love of money’ being put in opposition to ‘the love of justice’. It is, in fact, the fundamental theme being explored by Saturn Death Cult. The argument is made that the so-called ‘love of money’ (taken from the Greek philarguria – meaning ‘avarice for silver) is the desire to gain subjective and independent control over the defining of what is accepted as a claim on any and all work done. The ‘love of justice’ however, is presented as a higher ideal to which money is subject to, and not independent of, the weights and measures that form the bedrock of the Law governing any justice system.

    JR: You just asserted the existence of a concept called Law that rules over the actions of people. Again, that is a classic incantation of Babylonian black magic: the simple reality of language is that the pattern of activities of these people doing business as a justice system are CALLED the Law. There is no pre-existing standard before humans arrived.

    Consider a parable. Before there was any spoken language, was there such a thing as English? Did some eternal divine concept called The English Language govern the development of the English language? Did some concept of The Law govern or guide or organize court systems?

    The bedrock of a house is not formed by the house. The bedrock of the standards of the Law are formed by the agents of the justice system. They form those standards by fiat, by dictate, by declaration, by proclamation. Those standards have no inherent tangible reality except as temporary behavior patterns in the language of the agents of court systems.

    Before humans existed, there was no The Law. Before language, there was no Right and no Justice and no Justitia, Roman God of Justifications.

    TROY: The two concepts, expressed as idioms, are not presented in isolation, but as being in opposition ― again through the transitive use of the verb to love.

    The circular argument put forward in the jrfibonacci blog is that money is solely the construct of the courts; it is not — currency, and its role as a means of exchange, is the construct of the courts and currency should never be confused with money. In fact, the definition of money put forward in the jrfibonacci blog article is fundamentally flawed in that it makes the classic assumption that ‘money’ and ‘currency’ are synonymous. Money is a measure of productive labour; Currency is an expression and codification of that measure where it serves as a means of exchange. Thus, a currency can be under or without the jurisdiction of the courts, be legal tender or illegal tender, but if it is accepted in exchange for goods and services, then it is a representation of money.

    JR: RE “money is a measure of productive labour.”

    How does a particular system of measuring arise? Who says what is money and what is not and when and why and how?

    TROY: Again, let me reiterate: Money and currency is not the same thing. In the economic sense for which it serves, money is best defined as ‘a claim on work done’.

    JR: Claims are not tangible reality, but only linguistic as in legal as in social constructs.

    TROY: Everything after that; the coins and rules dreamed up by kings and courts, et all, is ‘currency’ ― something that is merely the accepted or enforced physical expression and representation of ‘work done’. At its worst, currency becomes a money-defined control mechanism used to regulate that which can be used as legal tender.

    JR: Why worst? You unconsciously adopted the moral standards that the Empire dictated to you. Remember, these folks create “conflict” and babble and wars as part of their business. 😉

    TROY: The truth about money is that it is merely a construct of any agreement where there is a need by a first party to make a claim on the productive labour of a second party. This can be achieved without courts through a simple and arbitrary agreement between the two parties as to what will be given by the first party (the price paid) in exchange for the first party’s claim over the work done by the second party. In its simplest form this type of monetary exchange is called barter. However, currency becomes necessary when multiple and diverse parties seek to make monetary-like exchanges, yet do not have the desired exchangeable goods or services required to secure those exchanges.

    JR: We could debate whether services can be money or only goods or whatever. You are wrapped up in concepts of justification and condemnation and so on.

    TROY: The circular reasoning employed by the jrfibonacci blog to suggest that there is no such concept as ‘unjust money’ because it is always sanctioned as legal by its parent justice system comes undone when one simply uses the linguistic unit ‘unjust’ to also describe the governing justice system: Hence, ‘unjust justice’ = ‘unjust money’!

    JR: Unjust justice and impossible possibility and unrecognizable recognition – all just activities in language, same as “negative cars” and “unopened sevens.” Troy, you seem not to demonstrate comprehension of what a symbolic code is. That is a pretty basic linguistic distinction when referencing the black magic of the Babylon systems of governing and organizing and coercing.

    TROY: Which brings us to the point where justice, as a concept, might be viewed by some as an absolute, but where justice systems as a whole are, in practise, rarely an absolute.

    With the above in mind, the love of money is really the love to make a claim on work done. Its root understanding and application is to be covetous.

    In contradistinction, the love of justice is really the love to provide accurate weights and measures in facilitating claims on work done. Thus the objects of the two ‘loves’ are mutually exclusive in effect, yet are united in deed by the creation of currency.

    JR: ah- by love, you mean pre-occupation or obsession. I agree then that one cannot obsess over more than one thing at once- whatever it might be- but only in sequence: first this, next that, and so on. So what?

    TROY: However, a love of righteous justice (accurate weights and measures) should ensure a righteous currency that represents a fair and accurate measure of money (a claim on work done).

    JR: This is the basic myth of the Babylonian court systems. Right derives from the word regal as in whatever the king says.

    Troy, you are clearly very intelligent. I encourage you to make a casual study of language- not to condemn any particular word or pattern of the use of language though. It is all for influence as in governing as in directing attention, perception, and action.

    TROY: When the love of the right to make a claim on work done overrides the love for accurate weights and measures, then this will lead to a desire to create an unfair advantage through an unfair and inaccurate measure of money. This will eventually corrupt the credibility of the overall weights and measures that define the rest of the justice system ― leading to ‘unjust justice’ via ‘unjust money’, and ultimately an unjust Law.

    JR: what about an unlawful law or an unconstitutional constitution? 😉

    No justice system is absolutely credible. They are all just temporary operations for the redistribution of resources through organized coercion, often including propaganda and deception as in psychological warfare. Get over it.

    TROY: Therefore, Saturn Death Cult employs the idiom of the love of money as a subset of actions within a judicial system which militates in opposition to the higher ideal of the love of justice proper.

    JR: “higher?” says who?

    TROY: This distinction is entirely predicated on the motivating factors (to love) at work in establishing the various weights and measures (statutes and rules) that make up the laws of any given system of justice, from its overall application right down to the judicial subset called ‘money’.
    *****

    I hope that provides a different perspective. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks again for taking the time to contact me.

    JR: I happen to sometimes be intrigued by the prospect of an intelligent conversation- perhaps to a fault. 😉

    TROY: Kindest regards,
    Troy McLachlan

    JR: best to you,

    J.R. “Fibonacci” Hunn

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: