The Relative Theory of Money (English Version)

Expression libre
#1

I’m reading through the Relative Theory of Money before I recommend it to other people.

https://en.trm.creationmonetaire.info/formalisaton.html#liberte-valeur-monnaie-repere

The part where it lists the axioms of free software and then expands it to define the axioms of free currency this part gets questionable.

Freedom of democratic modification

Does this really try to define a system of government that decides how adjustments to money are made? If so, there are several flaws to democracy. The most glaring of which is the systems of voting.
E.g results where there are two dominant parties both disliked by people. Example: in the US both parties want random wars in the Middle East.

#2

I think voting for a candidate or a party has nothing to do with real democraty. And Galuel probably used that term as a reference to real democraty and not the one we actually know in occident. You won’t find any official buildings with written « démocratie française » on it, no way.

1 J'aime
#3

Could the definition of democracy be disambiguated in that axiom? I understand if it means the people are free to modify its code or free to fork but not necessarily forced into a consensus.

#4

We should ask him directly. @Galuel, what do you think about it ?

#5

there 's no vote necessary for

Parameters of Duniter Ğ1 money have not been choiced by voting.
They have been choiced by respect of Principle of Parsimony, by logical and comparatives experimentations .
You can find all discussions explainations and demonstrations in the technic forum

Concerning the definition of Democraty: Demos (each egal of a communauty) Cratos (in capacity to make choice front of politics, economics, culturals organisation of the community).
Democracy seems not to be able under non libre money.
let’s try under libre money to see. :slight_smile:

#6

The word democracy is definitely associated with a voting process. That has my concern because each voting system mathematically has a compromise between strategy and honesty with varying degrees of severity.

At least the common interpretation of the word is not in use, but « democracy » will raise red flags for other readers especially in the current context of the US.

#7

nope, not for all.
For me vote is just a tool that can be useful sometimes to determinate for a time a role to a person in a specific domain for exemple.
Since all time vote is used by the oligarchic creator of money to make people believe they make democraty by.
NB: voting is very often making shadowing the freedom of choose.
Under libre money choice of decision is clearly observable by DU (Ğ1) transfers :slight_smile: .
where the Ğ1 goes the democratic decision goes.

#8

« Democracy » has become a portmanteau word. Basically, in political theory, political regimes were classified between monarchy (« mono-arke » power of one), oligarchy (« oligos-arke » power of few) and democracy (« demos-arke » power of people).

Today, the common sense of monarchs is hereditary kings, it is an abuse of languages, moreover most of the monarchies were elective (I even want to say, without too much trolling, that the current « 5th French Republic » is also an elective monarchy :stuck_out_tongue: ).

And given that the model of democracy remains Athenian democracy, we associate it with the vote, whereas what makes it a democracy is indeed a set of checks and balances (and the so-called democratic republics, with votes, are often not democracies).

Handling objections seems to me, for example, to be a better practice than majority voting in a democracy :slight_smile:

Here, the axiom says that the management of free currency should not be the privilege of one or a few :wink: A single free currency ruled by majority votes would not be free. You are free to create your own free currency, to copy others… and a free currency cannot be imposed on anyone.
The RTM is also free, you can suggest modifications :slight_smile:

2 J'aime
#9

Yes you’re right !