Sovereignty, Monetary Sovereignty, Monetary Monopoly, 2

It has been said that by their actions you will tell whether they are good or bad, and this is particularly applicable to politicians and the alike, because they specialize in using words to lead you astray away from facts. And it has been said, too, that all things wrong can be classified in a given number of types, and one of the most difficult types to detect is the lack of what should be there and is not there. Legislative voids belong to this particularly insidious type, and sovereignty is chief amongst them.

As your awareness of what takes place behind the scenes and how important it is that legal definition of money increase, you will be less and less surprised of how incredibly incomplete legislations are on this very point, and why. Legislative voids are not accidental – not where it counts; they are gaps carefully kept open in an underhand manner through which many unspeakable things are channeled, therefore the existence of these gaps, their persistence, and the conspiracy of silence around them should never surprise.

It’s easier for you and me as citizens to consent or dissent over something whose existence is not just ratified but even signaled in the first place by a legal definition; lacking that, it’s easier for that something to go on existing and operating unnoticed and undisturbed behind the scenes.

Agreements, whatever they may be, develop amongst people and form a society and individuals become part of it, willingly and actively or forcibly and passively, then those agreements form an established power and a rule of law, whatever based on force or justice, then the established power exercise itself into monetary power, usually reserving the right to issue money. This monopoly is exercised in various ways; the birth of money poses the problem of its counterfeiting, so this reason is given for the monopoly of money, but it’s just a pretext, as shown by these different ways of exploiting the monopoly: