Monetize or Demonetize

If a private individual acting alone offers pay for work as an employer of another individual acting alone, are these private individuals now public servants, serving each other? One individual acting alone on a desert island is private, but two individuals on the same island become The Public, or the people as a whole.

If a private individual acting alone fires someone from the pool of people known as The Public (the people as a whole) does the one being fired have standing at law in a civil case or a criminal case involving injustice?

“That one, yes that one, over there, yes, yes, I’m pointing directly at the one who demonetized me, clearly a case of wrongful termination!”

The private individual offering pay for work is offering something well within the clearly codified boundaries of common law, since the private individual is offering something that must be seen as something valuable to whoever agrees to exchange the value of payment for the value of employment. If the employee does not want to employ the employer, for whatever reason, the employee looks for another employer, case closed. If the worker does not want a pay check from “that” employer, then why would anyone force that employee to work for that employer? The obvious reason for choosing to employ each other is the shared agreeable value each will give and each will receive.

Since the common law is based upon the golden rule, and since the golden rule codifies the common law thereby, the test for legality, lawfulness, morality, right, in this case, is that someone offering something of value in exchange for something of value is a case where both people are doing onto each other that which they would want others to do for them. Each offer each other something each agree to be valuable, case closed. The two on the desert island establish law on that island, maintaining the peace, a standard of value for any refugees seeking sanctuary under the law, such as runaway slaves, immigrating to the lawful, peaceful, island of free people in liberty.

All are welcome, share the blessings of liberty.

The opposite is also true.

Someone taking value from someone else is a job that is worth the effort spent during the robbery, as seen by the criminal, from the viewpoint of the criminal. The victim of theft agrees that the thing stolen is valuable, one the value is gone, the victim evaluates the loss. Both agree that the transfer is wrong. The thief does to the victim that which the thief would not agree to if the victim were to dare to do the same to the thief.

Criminals are not allowed to take things on the island of free people. The Island of Liberty is the place where people insist upon monetizing the means to defend liberty. Crime does not pay, not on this island. No criminals allowed, free people monetizing the means to defend liberty are welcome.

All are welcome, share the blessings of liberty, criminals will be held to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any criminal case.

Lawful, legal, moral, maintainers of the peace, follow the codified law, they do not disturb the peace, they do for others, giving others peace, they do that which they would have others do for themselves.

Unlawful, illegal, immoral, disturbers of the peace, choose to step clearly outside the codified law, they disturb the peace when they do to others that which they would defend against if others dare to do the same to them.

What if the demarcation line between private and public was confused by an obvious fraud involving the creation of fictional beings known as Corporations, and these Corporate Beings were claimed to have natural rights common to individual, private, independent, human beings?

All are welcome, share the blessings of liberty, criminals will be held to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any criminal case, except corporations, they can do whatever pleases them, and they are immune from prosecution.

Consider this carefully when considering the right or wrong of the actions known as voluntary and involuntary association.

What is right or wrong about monetizing?

What is right or wrong about demonetizing?

To monetize is to voluntarily transfer value from a storage of value in one place to a storage of value in another place, or from access by one individual (or group acting as one) to another individual or group acting as one. The fund is in this place, on this island, and those two people on that island control the use of that fund, as they monetize each other, and the fund grows larger as a result of all the benefits of cooperation in peace. The fund is then made smaller during a transfer to another fund in another place, and the transfer of value monetizes the other place. From the fund where the two people remain inside the law, their monetary value, their purchasing power, is transferred, and their fund grows smaller during the transfer of value. The people in liberty grow weaker as their fund is demonetized. One fund is demonetized, the other fund is monetized. Those who have control over their shared fund of stored value, set aside for the expense of maintaining the peace, reduces as those monetary units flow to the distant island off into the dark unknown realm of deception. The island of liberty grows weaker and defenseless as the distant, dark, and fearful mire of deception sucks up all the wealth like a torturous vortex.

Group think, group consciousness, group morality, group decision making, group actions, either apply to every single member of the group, because each one is both accountable and responsible, or no one is responsible, and therefore no one can be held to account, for anything, including decision to monetize or demonetize other people, or all enemies foreign and domestic.

If the leader of a Group, such as the President Presiding over a Corporate Legal Fiction, decides to demonetize half of the population, and the other half of the population is monetized, is it the same as an employer firing a worker, or a worker quitting a job?

Keep in mind the fact that a Central Banking Fraud Scam, such as the one rioting in the blood of the innocent in America, can add as many zeros to their Bank Account, spend whatever amount they please to spend, to buy whatever money can buy – including children - and do so with absolute immunity from accurate accountability. With total immunity from prosecution, under common laws shared by common people, who just want to live and let live in America, the Legal Fiction takes everything and spends the loot on taking more, and that is OK with you, because, well, no one is responsible and no one is accountable, right?