Udhay,
> >
> > Consent implies an non-extorted assent.
> > Jail is used to extort the use of USD for certain purposes.
> >
> > Consider the following:
> >
> > Q: Did you rape this woman at gunpoint?
> > A: No. It was consensual sex. She agreed to it.
> > Q: Did you threaten to shoot her if she did not comply?
> > A: Yes.
> > Q: And you call that consensual sex?
> > A: Yes, she agreed to it.
> >
> > Defining consent as "any form of assent", whether extortion
> > is present or not, strains the common meaning of the term
> > to the point of absurdity.
>
> You're confusing what 'consent' means in this context. The 'consent' in
> the term 'consensual belief system' as applied to currency systems like
> bitcoin or the USD implies 'assent that this exists'; and NOT 'assent to
> use this'. i.e, the USD exists because two parties to a transaction
> agree that it exists - whether the use of this particular currency is
> enforced or not.
I think you're using "consensual" in a very different
way than it was in the original post.
Consider the quoted statements below:
> >> > I don't have to use Hungarian Forints, no matter what Hungary
> >> > says.
Clearly, I am only as free to not use Forints
as I am free to not do business with Hungary.
Hence, I might be compelled to use Forints against my will
as surely as a person might be raped.
> >> > Only if I want to do business with Hungary do I have to
> >> > use Forints.
If I must do business with Hungary, then I
am not free to avoid the use of Forints.
The meaning of "consensual" here is tied
directly to a decision regarding whether
or not to engage in doing business with
other party (Hungary).
> >> > Similarly you could decide to only accept
> >> > transactions in Bitcoins, and that would be consensual as well.
By talking about what I "decide" to do (or not do),
and relating that directly to a concept of what
the word "consensual" means, it is clear that the
word "consensual" means "assent to use",
not "assent it exists" in this context.
That is the reason why I objected to it
in the first place.
Clearly a currency does not depend upon any
"freely given assent to use it".
Seignorage is big business, and monetary
arm-twisting is commonplace.
The so-called "agreements" made between many
developing countries and the IMF, for example,
are often just about as "consensual" as the
forcible rape described in my first example:
<scary organ music>
<awful rumbling noise>
Haiti: Help!
IMF: Oh look, you just had a natural disaster!
Haiti: Help!
IMF: Want some money, my desperate little friends?
Haiti: Help!
IMF: OK.... Sign on the dotted line. :)
<scary organ music builds>
Haiti: Help!
Haiti: Help!
Haiti: Help!
<crescendo!!!>
IMF: Sign!
IMF: Your people are dying. Better sign quickly....
<lights dim>
Haiti: Help!
Haiti: Help!
<fade to black>
-Jon
