Money is a ideal created by the ideal institution which is known as the public economy.
It is the idealization of legal tender or of economical wealth and power.
Money is a result of the moral idealization of power itself especially in our time where instinctual amoral physical power is deemed unwarranted or just plain uncontrollable hence because money is easily controllable and regulated the " spending power " of money is given a free pass in all economical societies.
Since morality requires the illusion of absolute control in the face of chaos money is then instituted as a controlling policy.
One cannot talk about money easily without taking into account of the total economy.
We are well aware that money is closely linked to all economic phenomena and that it affects everyone.
We also know that an individual cannot earn or spend money without becoming a sacrificed part of the complex interplay of the larger economy through compromise.
In reality money is nothing more than a moral symbol of the total economy on the grounds of what is deemed acceptable power in society through idealization in narrow streams of thought.
The reality of money is that it has no value beyond that which is the controlled space of an economy according to its own prosperity gives it.
Money only exists in the abstract and impersonalization of the economy.
Money is impersonal because it increasingly seems as if the use of money is not an individual act, does not signify personal control, but instead results from distant and complex interactions of which our acts are merely echoes.
Individuals amongst the abstract economy come to be insignificant in the motion of money and although everything can be questioned money itself remains a timeless “sacred” relic which forever becomes a subject that is untouchable or even unquestionable in a idealized world that thrives on it.
Money is virtually a magical metaphysical device of the old archaic world that refuses to die. It is a relic that has survived the ages in which it magically leaves the world at any individual’s disposal through symbolic incantations.
It is purely religious in origin.
Just as state societies evolved from religious philosophies whether it be platonicism, christianity, confucianism, hinduism or islam money evolved from the same religious moral taboos and customs.
Just like religion rewarding those who honor sabbaths, written laws carved on stone and various other penances with preaching of salvation, the state which represents as god here on earth rewards those with conforming behavior with pleasures of “spending power” through the magical grace of the state’s symbolic religion known as the public economy.
Just as religions remain public to all who are willing to give themselves up to them so does the public economy operate the same way.
Money entirely derives from cultural habitualization.
Money is not based on substance but instead relies on the metaphysical.
Money only thrives on people’s faith in government.
Resources only come to exist in the economy when there is a demand for them.
The money I possess is not really in my possession.
There is never a moment where I possess a quantitative measurement of currency. Money is in constant flux.
My monetary worth is never quantitatively defineable.
I am perpetually exchanging the metaphysical, variable faith for physical substance or organized resources.
These resources then go through a process of qualitative entropy- losing their initial value as the economy, and actual physical substance goes through the process of entropy. It is constantly losing or gaining its value in an entropic process in both senses.
If its not stable it must be invisible.
Finally it should be known that money has always been a instrument of enslaving others within the controlled space that is the economy where others are disposed to do the services of upholding society together through forced coercion.
The laborer isn’t made to dig the ditch by his employer, and yet if he has no alternatives it does seem as though the man is in some sense forced to undergo the labor.
If the economic situation of a country is such that certain individuals are prevented from achieving their own potential as living organisms then it is the fault of the economic system.
The same laborer since he has no other alternatives but to sell his labor to the highest bidder is not a slave to his employer but remains a slave to all those who would exploit him according to his economic situation.
To say that this worker is free is nothing short of pure insanity.
One does not have a choice if there doesn’t exist any options to choose from.
To endorse freedom of contract in a society where certain individuals are not in economically free situation is tantamount to legislative slavery.
Imagine a starving man…
You are the only person within a thousand miles that has access to food.
Given that the drive to eat is a basic impulse the individual has no option but to accept whatever terms you propose in exchange for access to your food.
Is that a free contract?
In that case all that exists is the freedom of a privileged group to exploit another less privileged group.