News & Analysis
A Gold Standard Is Good?
Return of the Gold Standard Imminent ... The gold standard will precipitate a massive deflation. The ensuing chaos will help usher in their coveted New World Order and World Currency. What has been in the cards for decades is now fully on the agenda: the return of the Gold Standard. Gold as currency is a weapon. It is a wealth transfer to those holding Gold, which is not the 99%, and will precipitate a massive deflation. The ensuing chaos will help usher in their coveted New World Order and World Currency. – Anthony Migchels / HenryMakow.com
Dominant Social Theme: Gold is a barbaric metal.
Free-Market Analysis: Energetic social-credit entrepreneur Anthony Migchels is back with a spirited criticism of a "gold standard." His article appears – as have others by him – on Henry Makow's website and is focused on a few main points that have in part been made by other critics of a gold standard.
We are grateful to Mr. Migchels – and to neo-Greenbacker Ellen Brown – for continuing to advance a larger monetary debate over fiat versus money metals, even though we think to some degree it aids those who want even bigger government than we already have.
We won't however conflate Migchel's arguments with Brown's as he has disavowed some of them and has in certain instances seemingly agreed with arguments we've made about central banking and government bureaucracy. Nonetheless, we think we disagree with certain points in this article. Some more:
Numerous stories pertaining to Gold as currency have appeared recently. Last week alone, it was reported that India will pay Iran in gold for their oil imports. In another development, China, Japan, Russia, France and a number of Arab states will pay each other with a basket of currencies, including Gold.
Yet another story was about World Bank President Robert Zoellick, who has been promoting a Gold Standard for years, 'admitting' the demise of the dollar reflects 'a changing balance of power' in the world. Even Newt Gingrich has jumped aboard the gold train.
These stories are framed as resistance against the dollar hegemony and of course that is only a part of the story ... But the decline of the dollar is only part of the story. The dollar is only the current vehicle the Money Power uses to rule international finance. It doesn't care for the vehicle itself, as long as it has a suitable successor and that will be Gold.
And in the US itself there also is a strong drive towards Gold as currency. The onslaught by Austrian Economics in the Alternative Media comes to mind. And Ron Paul of course. He openly calls for Gold as currency. In this respect, he clearly is the ultimate internationalist candidate. This contrasts sharply with his patriotic 'constitutionalism'.
Some of this is good! Some of this, we've have pointed out in various articles ourselves. We think, possibly, that Money Power is deliberately breaking down the "old" economic order in order to create some sort of one-world currency. We think gold may be part of it – and we're surely not in favor of this sort of "directed history" when it comes to monetary schemes.
But we also believe that money, historically, has proven out to be gold and silver; though as hard-money economist Murray Rothbard pointed out, money has ALSO been virtually anything that people have decided it is.
However, Rothbard, from what we can tell, was mostly talking about commodity money – shells, salt, copper discs, etc., that are injected into economies via MARKET FORCES. The problem comes when certain monetary theorists want to use monopoly power (often of the state) to produce pure-paper money.
Once the state (or its adjuncts) decides to assume the power to "print" money, the marketplace monitor that works so well for private money is disassembled. Those who work (for the state, especially) do not know how much money is "enough" money – nor can they.
Migchels also states that libertarian-Republican presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul "lies" about the Constitution "saying the constitution says we should have Gold as currency ... but other units are allowed."
In fact, the US mints were clearly set up to stamp metals into coins and the intent of the founders regarding money metals seems fairly clear. In an educational article entitled "What Is a Dollar," well-known libertarian writer Edward Vieira, Jr. writes:
History shows that the real "dollar" is a coin containing 371.25 grains (troy) of fine silver.
a. The "dollar" in the Constitution. Both Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution and the Seventh Amendment use the noun "dollar." The Constitution does not define the "dollar," though, because in the late 1700s everyone knew that the word meant the silver Spanish milled dollar.
b. Adoption of the "dollar" as the "Money-Unit" prior to ratification of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers did not need explicitly to adopt the "dollar" as the national unit of money or to define the "dollar" in the Constitution, because the Continental Congress had already done so.
Migchels doesn't seem to fully define the difference between a state and a private gold or gold-and-silver standard. One standard is imposed by force and the other is not. What is the harm in having a standard that is voluntarily imposed and utilized?
The idea apparently is that even with a voluntary gold or gold and silver standard, the elites would continue to control the world's money system because they own most of the metal extant.
We're not sure this accurate to begin with, but even it is we're not sure it makes much difference. In a free money system, it would be difficult to control a money marketplace. If one wanted to try to manipulate markets, one would have to issue out money metals – or hoard them – at which point the price would go up ... or down.
The Anglosphere power elite, from what we can tell, is almost entirely allergic to using its own funds for purposes of realizing a New World Order. We find it highly doubtful that such a group would pour money into the marketplace to devalue gold or silver – especially since those holding most of the money metals would be the most affected.
If the elite tried to hoard metals, people likely would simply dig up more of it, devaluing what was already above-ground. In a free market, money manipulations are very difficult, if not impossible, especially over a long period of time.
Migchels makes the point that a Gold Standard would be "an unmitigated disaster" that would lead to excruciating deflation. But what is wrong with deflation? Murray Rothbard was fond of pointing out that in a full-gold-standard environment, goods and services would become more affordable as technology brought down their provision.
The point, apparently, according to Mr. Migchels, is that "Deflation is a horror for debtors, who see their debts and the interest they pay over them grow worse in real terms." But in a deflationary environment, those who held commodity money would see their assets appreciate, even if their debt did as well.
Mr. Migchels quotes the "Protocols" as saying: 'You are aware that the gold standard has been the ruin of the States which adopted it, for it has not been able to satisfy the demands for money, the more so that we have removed gold from circulation as far as possible."
The trouble with this quote is that it is difficult to establish definitively where the Protocols came from or whose views they represented. (We've actually written about this in the past.) But even assuming that the Protocols speak for "all Jews" – or even a Jewish "ruling class," the statement is seemingly vague. It makes no distinction between a free-market standard and a state-mandated one.
Mr. Migchels writes that, "Far from a 'solution', the coming Gold Standard is the logical next step in the Money Power plan of destabilization and order out of chaos. We will have a long and painful depression. Although it is not certain that Gold will completely replace paper, it is obvious that we will know scarce money and contraction for years to come."
This is only certain if the powers-that-be are able to mandate a state-run gold standard. State power is always to be feared, especially in the context of a new monetary system. But we would argue, on the other hand, that no one has to fear money that is created within the context of the market itself.
For some reason, part of the alternative media is consumed with fear when it comes to money metals. We think the real agenda may be that even critics of the current system that reside on the alternative media cannot entirely give up their yen to control society via the levers of state authoritarianism.
They want to have it both ways, in other words – criticizing the current system but making state power available for their various nostrums. Within this context, it is important to remember that every law and regulation is a price fix transferring wealth from those who earned it to those who did not and have little idea what to do with it.
Let the market itself decide on money. Don't fear money metals! Gold and silver have been the historical money of choice for thousands of years. A free-market gold and silver standard has apparently proven especially utile in the past.
Conclusion: If money competes – as we hope it will – we would be surprised if gold and silver don't eventually win out. Hopefully, one day, we'll be in a position to see if this is true ...
Posted by dave jr on 02/08/12 03:35 PM
Where did I say power is distributed? Are you talking about my idea that it originates in the earth? Then I should clarify that it is the activity of man to centralize it.
All things originate as a resource of earth. Man works the resource creating value. His excess value becomes wealth.
Do you have a problem with this view?
Posted by amanfromMars on 02/08/12 03:32 PM
Howdy, AW, How are tricks?
Give a man/woman/being what they want, and you will control them.!? And whenever what they want can be easily purchased with cash/money, do Money Power brokers have virtual control of a valuable asset for practically nothing/zero real cost.
Which makes you wonder at the low level of intelligence displayed by Money Power brokers who would fail to pay whatever was required/agreed, for that which is wanted by both/all parties.
Quite which party would be lead in that arrangement is of course open to different interpretation, especially whenever what is being purchased is known by the seller to be needed by the buyer, but to imagine it be one or the other intent on gaining a leveraging position rather than accepting it is a joint leading program of mutually beneficial, positively reinforcing advantage, is to miss out on the greater power which virtually useless cash/money can so effortlessly deliver and leave that which fails to provide unconditionally for their needs, catastrophically vulnerable, for there are no shortage of suppliers of feeds whenever one has what others need to seed.
That is both a weapon, AW, and a tool, and it is never offered and delivered by a fool, nor accepted by any fool either.
Things in those circumstances take a giant unstoppable leap forward for one then is dealing with extremely smart men/women/beings who can do as they please, and please each other ... ... .. which is for those who care and share and would dare, win win with nobody losing. And that is quite rare, methinks?
Posted by Agent Weebley on 02/08/12 02:46 PM
Hi dave jr,
Do you agree with me?
You said power is distributed, yet you also said power is centralized.
Which is it?
Posted by memehunter on 02/08/12 02:42 PM
3. If a person does not discover these "easy" criticisms by himself, what does it say about that person's critical thinking skills in that area of expertise?
Wait a minute. You may be right about Gauvin, but he still has not answered your latest criticisms. I may lack the ability to assess your criticisms on that account at the moment, but that does not mean Gauvin is wrong about saying that positive interest rates lead to instability.
I do not claim to be an expert in this area, but I believe I have accumulated sufficient evidence to think that interest is a primary weapon of Money Power. I will not recap here all the studies, quotes, arguments that I have provided on the DB. Even if Gauvin is wrong, I trust my "critical thinking skills" enough on that point.
"I am fixated upon defending true claims, and criticizing false claims."
Then, in the interest of fairness, you might have a few things to say as well about Bischoff's positions, or about Austrian economics for that matter (you did write one comment about this on this thread). You may have chosen not to debate with Bischoff anymore, but more generally it seems to me that the only "false claims" (again, I am not yet convinced that Gauvin is wrong) that you have spent time investigating on this thread are those made by Summer, Migchels, or myself (or studies that I quoted, in my case).
Sounds like a biased view of truth to me, but I'm sure you will have a good reply to that...
Posted by memehunter on 02/08/12 02:31 PM
"I for one am in defense of money power because I understand it includes my productive ability, my gift from God. The Rothchilds are nothing. Even if they owned all the gold on this planet, they have no power over me unless they dispatch assassins and henchmen."
Our current society is evidence enough that Money Power doesn't need assassins and henchmen to live off the production of others. It simply needs control of the money.
"We don't know if central banking grew out of central government, or vise-versa."
Central government existed independently of central banking. See the links on the tally sticks, for instance.
Posted by memehunter on 02/08/12 02:28 PM
"When I'm lending money to feedbacker dave jr, for example, and we, VOLUNTARILY, make a contract and he agrees, VOLUNTARILY, to pay me interest on the loan - even more so in a free market environment ... HOW ON EARTH IS THAT YOUR BUSINESS?"
You will also not be surprised to get the same answers to the same questions that you keep asking: if you make a contract involving a loan with interest, it is the business of other users using the same currency that you are using, since your transaction has introduced a systemic scarcity and competition for all users of that currency.
The only way your transaction is no one else's business is if the two of you are using a currency that no one else is using.
"And, yes, being anti-whatever (here "anti-interest") is, of course, being anti-freedom, as long as the parties concerned are choosing FREELY to do whatever they want to do ... VOLUNTARILY."
Wrong. In a market of competing interest-free and interest-based currencies, most people will FREELY choose to borrow in the interest-free currencies. Since there will not be many debtors using interest-based currencies, those wanting to make money by simply saving money in these currencies and living off interest will soon find out that it doesn't work. This will all happen FREELY and VOLUNTARILY (hey, I can shout too, though I don't like it that much personally).
"Obviously you don't like people to do whatever they want to do VOLUNTARILY."
See answer above.
Posted by flying_pig on 02/08/12 02:22 PM
"It is ludicrous to assume that I (or Summer, or Migchels) should cover everything in this thread."
This too deserves a separate comment of its own.
I will point out that it is equally ludicrous for you to expect me to refute each and every false claim made by Summer in her 8 point summary. I prioritize my battles, but that should not be construed to to mean that I agree with the other 7 points that I did not directly address in my criticisms.
You will see that it makes sense to focus on specific points, because as you may have noticed, I have still not managed to convince Summer about point 1 in her summary. And that should have been an easy one in a rational discussion.
I spent more time on Gauvin, etc. because you seemed to be capable of evaluating propositions and arguments independently without mere appeal to authority. I would not have opened that can of worms willingly if it were otherwise.
Posted by flying_pig on 02/08/12 02:12 PM
"Of course, it is easier to criticize than to attempt to provide solutions."
I'd like to make a few observations about this.
1. That something is easy does not imply that is incorrect. You never suggested this, but it is worth pointing out explicitly.
2. Your observation is not a particularly novel observation. It is related to the observation that it is easier to verify the steps of a proof than to come up with a proof. For those familiar with the complexity class NP, the latter claim comes as no surprise.
3. If a person does not discover these "easy" criticisms by himself, what does it say about that person's critical thinking skills in that area of expertise?
Posted by dave jr on 02/08/12 01:21 PM
"It's easy to see that the fact that you keep wanting to make this connection may lead to your position being seen, in some eyes, as a defense of Money Power."
I for one am in defense of money power because I understand it includes my productive ability, my gift from God. The Rothchilds are nothing. Even if they owned all the gold on this planet, they have no power over me unless they dispatch assassins and henchmen. We don't know if central banking grew out of central government, or vise-versa.
Take away the practice of charging interest, you say, and all will be fine. No it won't. Trust that the gunmen will take care of you. I will not. These henchmen on the loose are full of themselves, drunk on the power they have learned to extract, and I will not help them.
You can advocate a government sponsered social credit system, and all I can do is thank you for the honesty of your position.
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 02/08/12 12:57 PM
MH: "I fail to see the connection you make (and have been trying to make for a while now) between our opposition to interest as a main exploitative device of Money Power, and a putative opposition to freedom.
AA: Since I am consistent, as you noticed recently, you will not be surprised to get the same answers to the same questions that you - for whatever reason - keep asking over and over and again:
"It has been shown that time preference is a category inherent in every human action. Time preference manifests itself in the phenomenon of originary interest, i.e., the discount of future goods as against present goods (... ) Interest is a homogeneous phenomenon. There are no different sources of interest. Interest on durable goods and interest on consumption-credit are like other kinds of interest an outgrowth of the higher valuation of present goods as against future goods."
Ludwig von Mises
Click to view link
I have nothing to add to what Mises said regarding the subject of originary interest, but this: There's no such thing as a free lunch!
As regards (compound) interest: If, in a free market environment, some are willing to charge (compound) interest, and others are willing to pay it ... so be it. If, in a free market environment, some are willing to charge no interest at all ... so be it.
MH: "It's easy to see that the fact that you keep wanting to make this connection may lead to your position being seen, in some eyes, as a defense of Money Power. Basically, you are fraudulently trying to associate, in the minds of other feedbackers, an anti-interest position with an anti-freedom position. This kind of smearing by association is very suspect, in my view. Don't think that I haven't noticed your little games, which have been going on for a while as I mentioned."
AA: What about FREEDOM is it that you don't understand, memehunter? When I'm lending money to feedbacker dave jr, for example, and we, VOLUNTARILY, make a contract and he agrees, VOLUNTARILY, to pay me interest on the loan - even more so in a free market environment ... HOW ON EARTH IS THAT YOUR BUSINESS?
And, yes, being anti-whatever (here "anti-interest") is, of course, being anti-freedom, as long as the parties concerned are choosing FREELY to do whatever they want to do ... VOLUNTARILY.
That, memehunter, is neither "smearing by association" nor a "little game", but applied logic ... and a consistent plea for REAL FREEDOM for that matter. Obviously you don't like people to do whatever they want to do VOLUNTARILY. Obviously you think there are "areas" where YOU and others who mean well, of course, want to CHOOSE/DECIDE what they can or can't do VOLUNTARILY. And that, memehunter, is not freedom, but what we have in abundance for far too long already: UNFREEDOM.
Posted by dave jr on 02/08/12 12:23 PM
I guess it flew over your head. Power is never 'distributed', it is centralized. Power grows out of the earth for anyone to harvest if they can stand the work. The centralizers need your consent. They need you to forfeit the power of your labor / ability. There are two ways to centralize, which you call success. One is limited by the scale of economy and the other is limited by the amount of coercion people will tolerate.
Posted by Agent Weebley on 02/08/12 11:58 AM
Hi dave jr,
It sounds like you recapped what I said, except for: "Why then, would you want someone to seperate money from power?"
Look what the Money Power combo has given us . . . Money Power is used as a weapon.
Therefore, you distribute it fairly to each person on this planet at the time it is created, so trade can be facilitated starting fresh on an equal footing, and . . .
You warn people about the possible perils of business success . . . it can go to your head if you make too much money* and end up with delusions of grandeur.
Just ask Troy Tempest!
Click to view link
*I am only speaking of fair business practises, not cartels or collusion, or other such funny games played to skew the masses out of their money due to an inventive, yet evil mind gone awry.
Posted by flying_pig on 02/08/12 11:18 AM
"More and more currency (i.e., debt) needs to be created just to be able to service existing interest charges "
You need to open your eyes. This is not a consequence of interest. You still adamantly ignore the possibility of default, and the interfering role played by the state in staving off default.
When I pointed out earlier that you (and gang) are fixated upon interest, this is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. You never seem to consider the whole picture in your analysis of interest.
"More generally, I don't claim to have covered everything in my posts here. I'm doing what I can. It is ludicrous to assume that I (or Summer, or Migchels) should cover everything in this thread. "
By job here was to defend my claim that the 45% number was fraudulent. It is the analysis which is used to arrive at such numbers which does not cover everything. By "you people", I was referring to the authors of the study, and all uncritical people who blindly cite that 45% number.
"Basically, you are a good critic but you do not attempt to provide solutions"
I don't have to provide a solution when I point out flaws. I have indicated many times that I believe that money is created by a free market, and not imposed by govts e.g. not via gold "standards" and the like.
"On the other hand, you seem fixated on defending interest."
I am fixated upon defending true claims, and criticizing false claims. In short, I live to learn. Interest is incidental in the large scheme of things. But I have enough knowledge about the workings of interest to identify many claims being made here about interest as false.
Posted by memehunter on 02/08/12 11:03 AM
OK, but being against interest does not mean that we (myself, Summer, Anthony Migchels, and any others that I'm not aware of) are against freedom. I fail to see the connection you make (and have been trying to make for a while now) between our opposition to interest as a main exploitative device of Money Power, and a putative opposition to freedom.
It's easy to see that the fact that you keep wanting to make this connection may lead to your position being seen, in some eyes, as a defense of Money Power. Basically, you are fraudulently trying to associate, in the minds of other feedbackers, an anti-interest position with an anti-freedom position. This kind of smearing by association is very suspect, in my view. Don't think that I haven't noticed your little games, which have been going on for a while as I mentioned.
As for using "us", I'm clearly not the only one to whom you are addressing this reply (there are other people reading this thread), so I don't see the problem and this was definitely not a slip.
Posted by dave jr on 02/08/12 10:32 AM
You realize then, it was your efforts of raising and bringing to market, the chickens and goats that created value. And converting that value into currency really means YOU have 'money power'. Why then, would you want someone to seperate money from power? That is what your Khazarian friends are doing. And they do it more effectively than the A-Hole gang because they leave your productive power in tact to be harvested again, tomorrow.
The Khazarians ability to convince you they are doing a service leads you to lend your power to a "legitimate" seat you call government. The Khazarians are all too happy to accept, and continue to seperate money from power to the extent that they eventually control every aspect of your life.
Posted by Agent Weebley on 02/08/12 10:09 AM
If you were referring to my inference that almost everyone blindly trusts the games played on them by the wrong people at the top, and distrusts truth chatter amongst ourselves, which has always been the obfuscatoric plan to keep us out of focus with the truth about Money and Power, if I should be so bold as to invent a new word, you should go here for more edutainment as to who we should trust . . . the women . . .
Click to view link
The separation between money and power is also further explained in that post by my friend, Agent Joe 90. It is achieved by having 7 trustworthy individuals having to agree to come together to print more ARG MetaFlorin "game" money.
I know . . . it's a fluffy concept, isn't it?
But it's just an alternate reality game . . . right?
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 02/08/12 08:36 AM
MH: "Also, and in spite of the article to which you linked, I do not see free markets as the ultimate panacea"
AA: Disclosure: I see FREEDOM as "the ultimate panacea" ... which is the very opposite of coercion, "minimal" or not! One cannot have a little freedom just as one cannot have a little LIFE. EVERYTHING else is deduced from FREEDOM - naturally.
FREE MARKETS ARE A CONSEQUENCE OF FREEDOM, OF A FREE PEOPLE MAKING VOLUNTARY CHOICES. Free markets are a natural element if you will - a very crucial one, of course - but NOT at all the whole story. Far from it.
MH: As for analyzing my comments, perhaps you can tell us why you seem keen on defending (or at least do not seem to see as a major issue) the dominance of Money Power? You might think that I'm misrepresenting your positions when I say that you intend to defend Money Power. Well, guess what, that's exactly the feeling I experience when reading your analysis of my position on governments...
AA: Well, you're plain wrong. I never defended Money Power, never will.
Ah, and who is "us" by the way? Majestic plural, eh? Interesting slip, memehunter ...
Posted by Agent Weebley on 02/08/12 08:20 AM
I ended with:
"Ironic really . . . the nicest legacy anyone could leave for our children is to help everyone learn to trust the people that will separate "Money" from "Power" for them. But it has to be new money that is invisible to the Khazarians . . . flies under the radar-range . . ."
You then said:
"I'm not sure I completely follow here. Could you elaborate on that?"
I'm not sure what exactly you were referring to, but the whole thing is now on my/our site, all dressed up in its Sunday Best; so you may not want to attract further abuse here on the "Money Power" thing and go there instead. You know where it is. If you forgot, then search my name.
OK then, if you were referring to the radar-range commment: when one is inside the radar-range, things can get quite hot, quite fast, especially if you are not the one pressing the buttons. But under the radar-range is just a little bit of nondescript fluff. The stuff you ignore, since it really isn't bothering anyone. This fluff is where the real action is . . . yet it seems to have no function.
Click to view link
The entire "Money Power" definition is in the A-Hole Gang story, by the way.
Posted by memehunter on 02/08/12 06:34 AM
All I'm saying is that I see Money Power as the primary issue, and governments as a secondary issue. If you get rid of governments, Money Power can still assert its dominance (see my comments on this thread, backed by historical evidence). Governments (especially governments not allied with Money Power) are not necessarily evil, always and in all situations.
I have repeatedly said that a free-market for currencies, including interest-free currencies, and gold as a store of value, would likely be an ideal solution. I am very skeptical of any "gold standard", whether private or public, for reasons that I explained on other threads (yes, there is a big difference between advocating physical gold as a store of value and advocating a gold standard or gold-backed currencies as a means of exchange, I hope that this is clear by now - Anthony Migchels has written about this as well).
Also, and in spite of the article to which you linked, I do not see free markets as the ultimate panacea. I think cartels could still be a problem. I also pointed out that transactions between two parties may have forced effects on other parties (this is of course valid whether we are in a free-market situation or not, but the point is that advocates of free market cannot ignore these issues).
From your link:
"However, there is quite a high potential for aggression: so, for example, if a negative action is inflicted, the probability that the player will subsequently also act aggressively shoots up more than tenfold, even to about 30 percent."
To point out the obvious: There's a difference between having your avatar aggressed online, and get killed in real life.
As for analyzing my comments, perhaps you can tell us why you seem keen on defending (or at least do not seem to see as a major issue) the dominance of Money Power? You might think that I'm misrepresenting your positions when I say that you intend to defend Money Power. Well, guess what, that's exactly the feeling I experience when reading your analysis of my position on governments...
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 02/08/12 05:47 AM
"Finally, I have to smile at all these attempts at analyzing my personality, whether coming from you, Abu, Nappy, the DB... "Internet psychoanalysis" is rarely successful... I can assure you that I do not rely on the mass media propaganda, and that I am far from being an "emotional wreck".
I never attempted to analyze your personality. I tried to analyze some of your your comments though - like this one:
"if given the choice, I'd rather take governments without Money Power than Money Power without government"
Which, among other things you said, lead me to conclude that you (just like me or Anthony Migchels for that matter) have undergone a statist educational system which is conditioning it's subjects from very early age on to conceive the state and government "authority/solutions" as the main requirement for "civilisation".
This method is so effective, apparently, that you (or Anthony Migchels or Summer) are virtually unable, to this day apparently, to conceive of a people making VOLUNTARILY choices as they see fit BY THEMSELVES ... ALL THE TIME ... FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL.
Imagine there's NO government. It's easy if you try ...
Ah, and don't take my word for it:
"People Behave Socially and 'Well' Even Without Rules, Online Avatar Study Shows ... Millions of human interactions were assessed during the study which included actions such as communication, founding and ending friendships, trading goods, sleeping, moving, however also starting hostilities, attacks and punishment. The game does not suggest any rules and everyone can live with their avatar (i.e. with their "game character" in the virtual world) as they choose. "And the result of this is not anarchy," says Thurner. "The participants organise themselves as a social group with good intents. Almost all the actions are positive."
Click to view link