Farley on Nostr: When central authorities write laws that legalize actions that would otherwise be ...

When central authorities write laws that legalize actions that would otherwise be considered unethical or illegal, it doesn't fundamentally separate their actions from a thief's. In both cases, the act is one of extraction or taking from others, though the means are different. Here's how the comparison works:

1. **Legality vs. Morality**: Central authorities often use their power to make certain actions legal, such as currency manipulation or taxation structures that disproportionately harm the public while benefiting a small group. Just because these actions are sanctioned by law doesn’t mean they’re morally justified, much like how a thief's actions are illegal but driven by a personal code. In both cases, the *outcome* is the transfer of wealth or power from many to a few.

2. **Short-term Mindset**: While central authorities may present their actions as long-term strategies for national or organizational stability, in many ways, these actions have short-term benefits, often at the cost of long-term societal well-being. Printing money (causing inflation), for example, provides a temporary boost or bailout, but it erodes the value of savings and wages over time—much like how a thief steals for immediate gain without regard for the consequences to the victim or the community.

3. **Guise of Legitimacy**: By creating laws that allow certain harmful actions (e.g., excessive taxation, surveillance, or currency debasement), central authorities hide behind the veneer of legitimacy. A thief, on the other hand, doesn't pretend to have societal approval. Yet, in both cases, the objective is control and benefit for the few. The difference lies in the way these actions are packaged: theft is overt, while central authority’s actions are often covert, cloaked in bureaucracy or legal frameworks.

The core idea is that creating a system where one group benefits at the expense of others, even if it is "legal," doesn’t absolve it of the moral implications tied to theft. In this sense, centralized actions can be as short-sighted as those of a common thief—they erode trust, create imbalances, and result in long-term damage, much like theft in a community. Both operate on the premise of immediate gain without considering deeper impacts.