Components of Hierarchal Economic Ideology

Just as a hammer can be used to build something, or tear something down, or even to kill, tools serve the purpose of those who wield them. Whoever made the hammer intended to build something; the violent, however, are not the creators, they are the destroyers, and therefore do not make the tools, but simply grab whatever tool is available, and turn it toward their purpose. Religion and government were not initially created to subjugate people, but to connect people.

In the positive feedback loop created by systemic hierarchal oppression, the ‘disconnected’ (oppressed) invariably mimicked the tools and strategies of the oppressor to defeat him; thus, oppressors came and went, but the tools and strategies of oppression remained. Consequently, the communication of violence became weaponized and turned against one another to create a positive feedback loop of disconnection—a hierarchy of violence—that has successfully isolated the human organism from itself.

In an environment of hierarchal violence, the most violent would logically prevail, their methods would subsequently be institutionalized, where they could not easily be dismantled. While the arc of modern human existence is relatively short, it has been systemically bent toward hierarchal oppression; those who have dared to speak about it in economic terms have mostly centered their arguments around property rights, labor, and money; prior to action, however, there must be choice, and before choice, some driving belief behind that choice.

As a reaction to 4500 years of oppression, ‘enlightened’ philosophers of the late Middle Ages began to fashion the tool of rhetoric to communicate their feelings of perceived imbalance (inequality); terms like freedom, justice, equality, happiness, etc., helped connect subjugated peoples together, but they also led to the rationalization that the oppressed must fight fire with fire. One of these incendiary terms—Liberty—must be added to the list, as it ultimately missed the mark and justified the manifest destiny of one group to gain their Liberty at the expense of everyone else’s.

What is Intraspecific Hierarchal Liberty?

In one of his proudest moments,^[129] early American Thomas Jefferson invoked the “Laws of Nature” and declared that men had “unalienable rights”—Liberty among them—and to “secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”^[130]

Ironically, Jefferson’s real motive was not to form a new government, but to escape the old one, which he apparently felt was infringing upon his ‘negative’ liberty.^[131] In unicellular economics, negative liberty represents the reactive irritability caused by perceived unfavorable environmental conditions, which elicits a ‘negative (navigational) response’ during cellular taxis. At the social / relational level, people similarly get irritable and initiate negative responses to arbitrary restraints on their freedom to navigate the environment. Per the fight / flight mechanism, people will react by fighting, fleeing, or fawning (adopt submission as a survival strategy to avoid conflict), depending on the nature (and nurture) of the perceived relationship.

Since the hierarchal economic schism severed people from their land, labor, liberty, and beliefs 5,000 years ago (and counting), two opposing points of view have emerged, such that oppressed and oppressor can speak ‘at’ each other using the exact same words, but still not understand what the other is talking about. Some have even begun to divide the words in two, to make sure neither side has anything in common. For this treatise, we will define negative liberty as the absence of external limitations and ‘positive’ liberty as the absence of internal limitations.^[132] Positive liberty grants each person the “power and resources to fulfill their potential,”^[133] in order to gain mastery over oneself.^[134] Negative liberty is driven by ‘rational self-interest,’ which throughout history has entitled many—including Jefferson—to gain mastery over others.^[135]

This ‘mastery’ (or control) over others ^[136] has been labelled ‘oppression’ by its victims, from the Latin oppressionem meaning to “press down against, suffocate, or rape.”^[137]

Negative liberty is the liberty of oppressors, which is why it takes so many oppressive laws to enforce it. The U.S., for instance, currently incarcerates more of its citizens than any country in the world; 1.9 million are in facilities, 2.9 million are currently on probation, and another 820,000 remain out on parole.^[138] This is but one example of the numerous negative externalities caused by a system that has not been able to clearly differentiate between self-control and control over others.

Lock wild carnivores of equivalent size in a room, then throw a piece of meat down between them. The first one who charges will be repelled by two others, causing three more to step forward, and so forth, until two sides inevitably form. At this moment, the piece of meat represents the Negative Liberty of each participant, yet even then, two opposing points of view will form. For some, Liberty will represent property ownership, where possession becomes nine-tenths of the justification for whatever methods are used to acquire it. For others, Liberty will be equated with fairness, or the equal opportunity of each to possess the property. While neither of these versions would result in a satisfactory outcome for all involved, once the fighting starts, these are the only two ’reasons’ that will be used to justify actions none are able to control, because they are purely reactive evolutionary strategies.

Within predatory environments, agonistic behavior will invariably ensue; the aggressor will be rewarded over the one who submits (seeks peace), and consequently grow stronger (‘fitter’) in possessions or wealth, and through this success, choose continued aggression as their survival strategy. For this reason, negative liberty ultimately leads to unbalanced (separate but not equal) relationships that present as hierarchal; the disconnection between groups of people generates positive feedback loops that communicate various forms of external and internal violence throughout the general population.

Conclusion:

When people finally believe they have suffered enough, they would do well to replace negative liberty as one of the cornerstones of their economic foundation.

What are Hierarchal Property Rights?

Nobody ever arrived on or departed from the Earth carrying with them any visible property—real, personal, or intellectual. The cells that make up our bodies are even on loan. Anyone who would argue that property rights exist is not citing any Natural Law, and for this reason, the first negative externality of hierarchal property rights is the weapons that must be used to secure it.

Good science fiction writing usually begins with some fantastical premise that—once accepted—proceeds to unfold in a relatively logical manner. Once we agree that the Earth is flat, for instance, or that there is such a thing as ‘property rights,’ we could begin building a sturdy infrastructure of relative truth on top of it, then navigate this virtual reality, always careful not to stray too far intellectually and ‘fall off the edge.’ Because our built-in eukaryotic navigational systems are programmed to adapt to any environment, we would soon forget to remember that it was originally built on a foundation of pure fantasy.

The illusion of property rights can only be defended with weapons in hand, as no convincing verbal argument exists for it. We continue to double down on this flimsy economic premise, however, forcing us to give guns equal protection under the law (guns as people, complete with free speech). We then proceed to manufacture 400 million of them (so that everyone—per their ‘civil rights’^[139]—could carry and / or conceal one^[140]), spend $215 billion a year in law enforcement (to protect ourselves from the potential misuse of them^[141]), and $2.8 billion a year in healthcare costs (to fix up whoever survives being shot with them by members of America’s well-regulated militia^[142]).

Theft is merely a social / relational communication transmitting how people feel about property rights (or more accurately, how they feel about the imbalance created by property rights). Almost $69 billion was stolen in 2019, just from retail stores alone. $16.4 billion was stolen in personal property.^[143] Wage theft (employers stealing from their employees) is estimated at $15 billion,^[144] while employees are stealing back a whopping $50 billion^[145] (this number is rising at a rate of 15% each year^[146]).

In social / relational terms, employees stealing not only communicates the feeling that a perceived imbalance exists, but also demonstrates the disconnection employees feel from the businesses where they work. When rioters loot and burn down buildings in their own community (often in a frustrated response to police brutality), their reasoning is almost always the same: it is not ‘their neighborhood,’ they do not own any part of it, they have no stake in it, i.e., they have no established connection to it.

The most worrying thing about property rights is that no one questions its existence, likely because so many equally profitable (and equally fictitious) concepts are attached to it. Economic Rent only exists because of property rights. In densely populated areas where Economies of Scale should lower prices, agglomeration of people somehow drives prices higher.

Similarly, the concept of economic scarcity is a flimsy premise upon which to justify poverty, price gouging, inflation, unlivable wages, food deserts, etc.Economic‘scarcity’ is not a problem of demand or supply, it is a problem of distribution, which is an issue of connection / disconnection. We live on an isolated planet of finite resources, and if we could only use them once, we would already be dead. Again, the blueprints for a sustainable economics is all around us, and through infinite recyclability, scarcity would cease to be a legitimate argument. Scientists have been working on this problem for over two hundred years. Celebrated Scientist Eugene Chen discovered an infinitely recyclable plastic in 2016;^[150] predictably, no one has invested in it. The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Station still leaves its 120-year old light bulb on to show the ingenuity of French engineer Adolphe Chaillet, who patented it in 1899,^[151] but no company would ever manufacture a bulb that never burns out. Similarly, new healthcare innovations that can cure chronic diseases with one-time treatments have recently been deemed “bad for business.”.^[152]

Around 2.4 billion years ago, cyanobacteria oxidized the Earth via photosynthesis, removing the carbon from the air and paving the way for human existence.^[153] By 1885, humans built the first successful gas-power automobile, and began pumping this carbon back into the atmosphere. It should be noted that in 1766, hydrogen was discovered, which had the curious property of turning into water when it was burned in the air.^[154] By 1790, we discovered that we could create hydrogen simply by zapping water with electricity. In 2008, Tesla (named after Nikola Tesla, who is rumored to have invented an electric car battery as early as 1931) began selling lithium-ion battery-powered vehicles. CEO Elon Musk, who fueled battery technology with money he made holding an interest in a money-exchanging platform (PayPal), was asked about the possibility of hydrogen-powered vehicles; he called it “the most dumb thing I could possibly imagine,”^[155] which is unfortunate, as he currently holds more capital (the fuel of hierarchal economics) than anyone in the world.

If humans had a long-term goal, it should be infinite recyclability of all resources; to do this, we can no longer allow single individuals to hold property rights over resources, or over any of the means of connection along the economic supply chain.

Conclusion:

When people finally believe they have suffered enough, they would do well to replace hierarchal property rights as one of the cornerstones of their economic foundation.

Lessons From the Indus River Valley Civilization

7500-1800 BCE: [India] The Indus Valley civilization did not face conquest or civil war for the entire period between its establishment (approximately 7,500 BCE) and its eventual decline (around 1800 BCE^[156]), making it the control group in a social / relational experiment to determine the causation of intraspecific hierarchal violence. Recent evidence shows that this civilization expanded over a much larger territory than previously thought, and was highly advanced, with knowledge of urban planning (streets, “baked brick houses, elaborate drainage systems, water supply systems, and clusters of large, nonresidential buildings.”^[157]). Evidence also suggests that as drought dried up the rivers, these once-nomadic clans simply took to the road again, leaving the cities to slowly decay (the earliest known incidence of urban decline).

Also noteworthy was the absence of religious temples, although some religious seals were found, which suggest the existence of religion.^[158] 

Further evidence indicates that while these nomads had clearly established residency, they tended to come and go as they pleased. Urban planning requires some form of political process; the fact that the infrastructure was built for the convenience of all inhabitants (roads, water and sewer systems, nonresidential buildings) also suggests that no definitive hierarchy existed, where one group extracted nonreciprocal obligations from another. There was no evidence of coerced labor, “of palaces or temples—or even of kings, armies, or priests—and the largest structures may be granaries.”^[159] What these urban planners did spend time doing was making thousands of

baked brick building blocks. Newcomers were likely in charge of their own dwelling construction; empowering people to build their own house leaves little time to tear down someone else’s.

It is important to note that in Mesopotamia and Egypt, the temples were not places where the citizens came to worship; like the Indus civilization, people worshipped on their own. The temples were places for the collection of taxation, in the form of labor or the products of labor; the priests were there to serve themselves in god’s name, not to serve the people.

Two theories are possible: because these nomads also valued their mobility (autonomy), they remained rolling stones that could gather no institutional attachments. More likely, there civilization was simply more inclusive; evidence clearly shows some of the people coming and going, while advanced city planning indicates many people stuck around. When everyone took to the road in 1800 BCE, these structures quickly decayed, which is evidence that citizens kept the cities up for many centuries out of pride of collective ownership (i.e., sense of community).

‘Nomads’ and ‘settlers’ were equally welcome. This social experiment does suggest, however, that once one person or group covets something, and attempts to hoard it, it only causes another to want it as well; establishing an environment of natural equilibrium would mitigate (or eliminate) much of the negative externalities shown in more imbalanced (hierarchal) arrangements.

Understanding Hierarchal Debt Money

Findings

At the social / relational level of biological economics, hierarchal money is an institutionally imposed shared belief used to measure human uncertainty in terms of Hierarchal Debt.

The human organism is an interesting vehicle; it needs fuel to power itself, yet unlike most vehicles, organisms perish without constant refueling. Conveniently, organisms have the will to refuel themselves; they perceive this deficiency or deficit and attend to it.

A debt is not the same as a deficit; a debt is something that is owed. Archeologists have traced the etymology of debt to the concepts of “sin” or guilt” for violence perpetrated upon fellow tribe members,^[160] for which reparations were needed (to ‘square’ the negative value with a positive one). This would jibe with religious practices attempting to legitimize offerings (or other forms of taxation on labor) as a debt owed to their ‘makers.’

‘Bio-philosophically’ speaking, though, how the unicellular organism made the leap from the deficiency of constant deficit to the owing of some debt most certainly centers—once again—around connection. We owe it to ourselves to provide sustenance and protection to our children. Early humans owed each other their lives, as they interdependently banded together to stave off uncertainty. Later, religious types convinced people they owed something to their gods; this soon turned into owing their labor and their lives to centuries of semi-divine oppressors, and thus this illusion of debt was passed forward to the present day. Biologically speaking, however, no debt exists, only a deficit.

The will to survive, driven by personal beliefs—exercised through each person’s Liberty—is the mechanism that informs each person how, why, and whether they will fill this deficit. When relationships are mutual and Liberty is positively applied, the only thing an ‘equally created’ people would logically be owed is a good reason why they should labor toward the nonreciprocal benefit of someone they do not know.

• Laboris Credit. It can never be anything else. It is the only means of positive value creation, through which all human existence is sustained.
  • There is no Debt, because nothing is owed; there is only Uncertainty, and only through Labor, activated by Connection, fueled by Shared Beliefs, can Uncertainty be driven back.
• Hierarchal Debt represents the hole into which a subordinated people shovel their Labor.
• Hierarchal Money represents the total amount of outstanding Hierarchal Debt. All Hierarchal Debt Money is generated purely by indebtedness to (mostly private) banks.
  • Currently, 97% of hierarchal money is based on debt (only 3% of money is created by governments, and that money was also created as debt^[161]). Every U.S. dollar someone possesses represents another citizen’s unpaid debt.
  • Because Debt does not exist, neither does hierarchal debt money; the illusion that hierarchal debt money has value occurs because it gets attached to labor value when laborers use their remunerated wages to buy ‘consumer goods.’
    • Labor value is real; pure labor value is used to A) pay taxes, B) make deposits, and C) pay off loans. This is why the laborer’s bank deposits are allowed to generate the creation of the hierarchal debt money,which proceeds to ‘multiply’^[162] ten-fold as it is passed around from bank to bank, though only the original deposit money holds any real value, because it represents labor value. Similarly, during the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, a single home mortgage (attached to a real property) generated hundreds of different ‘mortgage-backed securities;’ this web of hierarchal debt money is used to reel in and capture pure labor value, and banks need surprisingly little real value ‘bait’ from which to attach this web.
    • If the private bank stretches itself too thin and collapses, it keeps the depositor’s real money and declares bankruptcy, then lets the People’s government replace the depositor’s money with—ironically—more hierarchal debt, into which taxpayers shovel even more of their labor value.
• Hierarchal Money is a value-laundering racket. The deception is more easily detected if we call hierarchal debt money simply what it is:hierarchal debt (a negative value or tax on the positive value of labor); labor value represents all the ‘positive value,’ which is represented by the laborer’s wage. The sum of labor value plus the value-added taxation of hierarchal debt forms hierarchal labor-laundered money.
  • Labor creates value—a product. Hierarchal money surrounds this product, creating a ‘market’ for it; property owners and various intermediaries form a line to facilitate supply and demand, where they each attach some hierarchal debt onto the labor value, creating a price well above the wages labor needed to create this product. Packaged up as a consumer ‘good,’ its purchase extracts further labor value from the laborer, serving as a form of value-added taxation onto the original labor value. In these transactions, hierarchal debt is effectively ‘laundered’ as it is exchanged for real labor value (the price paid for the consumer good).
  • Because hierarchal economics has long ago severed supply from demand, each person has also been severed into two parts: a laborer and a consumer; each person, taken as a whole, is made to pay the price of these ‘value-added taxes’ placed onto the products of their labor. These ‘taxes’ are known by many deceptive aliases, such as property rights (real or intellectual), agglomeration, inflation, supply and demand, inelastic demand, elastic currency, economic scarcity, price gouging, or economic rent, but all represent the private bank hierarchal debt that attaches itself to real labor value (through the products of Labor), where it parasitically siphons away even more of the laborer’s value, leaving the laborer with the hierarchal debt.
    • When the laborer discovers the shortfall in their money supply, they will either choose to ‘tighten their belts’—whereupon the economy slows—or borrow more hierarchal debt (which ‘feels’ like real labor money because it can A) pay taxes, B) buy goods, C) be deposited, or D) help pay back the new debt). Once the new hierarchal debt is floated into the economy, it can be further siphoned from the laborer’s wages, continuing the National debt spiral.
    • Specifically, there are two types of value represented by one currency or ‘money’: ‘positive’ Labor Value, and ‘negative’ Hierarchal Debt Value. They are attached on the supply side, inflating the price of the labor, so that more positive Labor Value can be extracted from the laborer-turned-consumer on the demand side. Through the lure of consumerism, hierarchal debt gets attached to the laborer, securing continued subordination; it is through the inelastic demand for essential needs that the largest amount of hierarchal debt gets attached, knowing people must purchase these products to survive.
• Taxation is NOT Debt; it is Credit extracted from the value of each person’s Labor.  This treatise asserts that Labor is the only source of positive value, thus anything else is simply a tax on the laborer’s value:
  • A percentage is extracted in government-imposed taxation (federal, state, sales, property, excise, payroll, etc.).
    • Government-imposed taxation pays for economic infrastructure the laborer is not allowed to own, intraspecific hierarchal war the laborer did not precipitate, big business ‘subsidies’ which comprise hidden value-added taxation on essential needs, research & development in which the laborer is not allowed an investment share, and interest on the National Debt caused by government inefficiently doling out the laborer’s money for all the above sunk costs.
  • A percentage is extracted from private banks.
    • Loans are repaid in pure labor value. The interest rate is a value-added taxation on labor value for the rent of ‘money’ that does not exist.
    • Inflationary mechanisms also eat away at the money while it sits in private banks ($100 deposited in 2012 is only worth $78 in purchasing power today); Meanwhile, it serves as the ‘collateral’ for the banks to negotiate new issuances of hierarchal debt through loans ($100 loaned by the bank will make $137 for it down the road, also eaten away by its own inflation).
  • A percentage is extracted during purchases.
    • Besides the collection of sales or excise taxes, the added hierarchal debt from owners and intermediaries—attached to the supply-side labor value and sold back to the laborer on the demand side of the economic exchange—represents the largest taxation of labor value.

Discussion

Money is (and always has been) a fixed unit of account; from conch shells to tallies, ingots to coins, cash to credit, money serves as a means of accounting for the exchange of dissimilar goods and services, nothing more. All the trouble around money arises when it becomes a ‘store of value.’

How does money ‘store’ value? Because we believe it does. Why do we believe that it does? Because the belief is shared; thus, the value is stored in the connection between each of us (the shared belief in ourselves as a nation, for instance) that we reciprocally confer onto the money, whether it currently is represented by cash, coin, credit, debt, etc.

Truthfully, no one had a say in any shared belief that money stores value; it is a hierarchally-imposed tradition that began long ago when our shared beliefs were made the property of the first oppressor. Title to these shared beliefs have been subsequently transferred from oppressor to oppressor until 1913, when they were passed from the people’s government of the United States to the hierarchal money laundering monopoly (privately-owned market without competition) known as the independently (aka privately) run Federal Reserve System.

The first step toward breaking these invisible bonds of hierarchal oppression is to adopt a new shared belief:

• If A) money can only exist through our shared belief in it, and B) beliefs are the property of each person (through the liberty granted them by the United States Constitution), then C) only through a single medium (or source) that is owned collectively by all citizens could this shared belief be properly protected and disseminated. Further, D) no private institution could be allowed to garner any interest from the sale or rent of the people’s money, because this interest could only be the property of the people who share the belief in its value. Finally, E) since the federal government is the only institution with sovereign money powers, we cannot afford to believe in money that is not created by a government bank (indeed, a government-created bank is the only bank ever deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court).

Money is special because it is the only remaining shared belief all Americans possess. Therefore, the ultimate purpose of this treatise must be to A) sew up the disconnections around money so that it may serve a singular purpose, then B) turn that purpose back toward humanity’s foundational (biological) objective to maintain homeostatic balance through mutual connection. This can be achieved by C) rewarding each person’s share in the means and mediums of all mutual connection while being careful to D) retain an interdependent—or positive version of—liberty.

The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics claims that one dollar in 1913 (the year the Federal Reserve Act disconnected the people of the United States from their Money Powers^[164]) now has the purchasing power of $30.29, which is absolutely true—if we still lived in 1913 (conversely, a dollar tucked away in 1913 is only worth 3 cents today). If money is some liquid store of value, it has been stored in a very leaky bag; 6.5% leaked out of everyone’s bag in 2022 alone.^[165]

The general term for this leakiness is ‘inflation,’ or the slow loss of money’s purchasing power through time. From the perspective of biological economics, the leakiness in hierarchal (financial) value represents homeostatic imbalance resulting from seven (identified) disconnections in the biological economic process; between these disconnections, hierarchal middlemen have inserted themselves to deliberately drain hierarchal value from the system, dumping their ‘inflationary’ hierarchal debt onto the purchasing price of all goods and services.

On its face, Hierarchal economics has created a market for the pursuit of maximum certainty (aka the ‘pursuit of happiness’) Through this market, each person’s Liberty has been channeled toward multitudinous ‘consumer’ choices; how each person decides to fill the empty physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual holes within them defines their ‘freedom of choice’ as a ‘consumer.’ The first hole runs straight through the middle of each person, and must be filled to maintain homeostatic balance; from there, human uncertainty follows a path straight up the ‘hierarchal’ list of human needs (physiological and safety needs, belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization^[166]), because connection is not only about access to physiological needs.

Underneath its face, Hierarchal economics is wholly driven by disconnection; in total, Hierarchal economics utilizes seven points of disconnection, where a barrier has been placed—a hierarchal economic ‘checkpoint’ or paywall—so that intermediaries (hierarchal ‘middlemen’^[163]) can charge a toll for every economic exchange that passes through those barriers. By disconnecting access to 1) money, 2) resources, 3) our Liberty, 4) our wages, 5) the ‘fruits of our Labor’ (production) and 6) each other, the potential for ‘Value Added Taxation’ (VAT) exists at each disconnection point, which allows hierarchal middlemen to inflate the final cost of each good or service by the time it reaches the consumer.

Uncertainty is most exacerbated when hierarchal economics disconnects people from essential needs, which drives an inelastic demand for them (meaning people will pay any price to acquire them—they will even attempt to outbid each other for them). It is around essential needs that inflationary price increases most occur (economic rent, price gouging, abnormal profit, predatory lending, etc.).

Disconnection 1: Between the Earth and the people (enforced through property ownership).

Purpose: to extract labor.

• Technically, people still own their labor; however, there is nowhere to freely exercise this Natural Law (thus, the only source of positive value creation comes at a cost to the one who helps provide it).

Disconnection 2: Between each person and their Liberty (enforced through business ownership).

Purpose: to extract profit.

• The laborer’s Liberty to choose has been severed from the mechanism of his or her labor and redistributed to the owner as a nonreciprocal obligation; the owner assumes the role of medium of production, which incurs risk in hierarchal economic arrangements. Thus, wages only need cover the laborer’s ‘use value.’

Disconnection 3: Between each person and their labor value (enforced through hierarchal government).

Purpose: to extract taxation.

• The laborer pays for the mediums of connection—such as transportation, energy, or communication lines—through which the private sector often extracts further labor value; taxation—born out of religious practices—is very much the ‘cross we have to bear.’

Disconnection 4: Between laborers and the products of their labor (enforced through traditions such as feudalism or slavery).

Purpose: separates supply from demand, laborer from consumer.

• A tree is a tree until labor turns it into a house. Who owns the tree is “nine-tenths” of hierarchal law.

Disconnection 5: Between the products of labor and their price (implemented to attach hierarchal debt).

Purpose: to maximize debt, which secures maximal labor, that in turn maximizes potential profit.

• The number of so-called ‘property owners’ allowed in the economic cycle creates successive ‘value added taxes’ that further diminish labor value.

Disconnection 6: Between the consumer and their shared beliefs (implemented through an ‘elastic currency’).

Purpose: to extract economic rent, inflation, price gouging, etc.

• Hierarchal economics comes with its own version of liberty (‘consumerism’), where people are afforded the binary choice to either connect to—or disconnect from—a myriad of ‘consumer choices,’ which are subsequently used against them, as a product’s price is allowed to increase based on the number (agglomeration) of consumers who share the belief in its value (therefore, in hierarchal economics, consumers do not own their shared beliefs).

Disconnection 7: between the people and their shared belief in money (currently housed within the Federal Reserve).

Purpose: to cast a wide net of hierarchal debt out into the financial waters in the hope of reeling in maximum labor value. Currently, the only universally held shared beliefs are the ones imposed by hierarchal institutions (money, property rights, taxation, gun rights, hierarchal economics, et al.), none of which allow the people sharing the belief an individual ‘share’ in the value of it. A ‘right’—which must be defended by violence—can be turned into a reciprocal conferment simply by giving people a ‘share’ in the value generated—to ‘buy into’ the belief—rather than forcing the belief on them under threat of violence.