Rebuttal by Zachary Moore: A Systemic Dismantling of the Defense of Central Banking and Fiat Currency

-


 

Rebuttal by Zachary Moore: A Systemic Dismantling of the Defense of Central Banking and Fiat Currency

I. Defining Key Terms: Interest, Justice, and Value

Before engaging the specifics of the counterargument, let us clarify the terms at the heart of this debate: interest, justice, and value. Without clear definitions, any argument risks becoming a rhetorical exercise devoid of substance.

  • Interest: At its core, interest is a claim on future labor or resources that does not yet exist. When one charges interest, they demand the repayment of something that cannot mathematically or physically exist without extracting it from another. It is, therefore, not a fair compensation for risk or time but a mechanism of perpetual extraction, divorced from real utility or productive capacity.

  • Justice: Justice, as defined by its classical roots, is the giving to each their due. Any act that enriches one party by injuring another violates this principle. To argue that a system of usury or fiat currency is just because it benefits certain sectors of society ignores the harm it inflicts on others, and thus cannot be reconciled with true justice.

  • Value: Value derives from utility. Copper conducts electricity through a wire; steel supports skyscrapers. These properties exist regardless of societal trust or governmental decree. By contrast, fiat currency lacks inherent utility and derives its value solely from coercion. To suggest otherwise is to argue that we could construct skyscrapers with marshmallows or transmit electricity with wood if only we believed in them strongly enough.

II. The Limited Scope of the Constitution and Government

The defense of the Federal Reserve and fiat currency appeals to the Constitution’s delegation of powers to Congress under Article I, Section 8. However, this ignores the Constitution’s fundamental limitation on government authority. The government is not empowered to create unjust systems, regardless of perceived economic benefits.

  • Constitutional Scope: The Constitution’s purpose is to secure natural rights, not to serve as a blank check for economic experimentation. To justify the Federal Reserve on the basis of "necessary and proper" powers ignores that no action—no matter how expedient—can be lawful if it violates fundamental rights. Lending fiat currency at interest, which enslaves future labor to an unpayable debt, is inherently unjust and outside the bounds of legitimate government authority.

  • Historical Context: The argument defending central banking on constitutional grounds would be equally valid in justifying antebellum slavery or British colonial taxation. Both were once legal and justified on grounds of economic utility, but legality and morality are not synonymous. History has judged such systems as unjust because they violated the principle of justice by enriching one party through the exploitation of another.

III. The Question of Value and the Illusion of a "Dynamic" Economy

The claim that fiat currency facilitates economic growth and stability depends on a misunderstanding of value and the nature of the economy.

  • Fixed Resources: Every atom that has ever existed exists today. The economy is not a mystical entity that grows or shrinks; it is merely the organization of matter to serve human purposes. A "dynamic" economy, as described by central banking proponents, is not a system of creation but one of redistribution, often to the detriment of those least able to protect themselves.

  • Monetary Expansion as Theft: Fiat currency does not add real value to the economy; it redistributes existing value through inflation and debt. To print money and devalue existing wealth is akin to pouring water into wine and claiming there is now more wine. This system benefits those closest to the source of new money—governments and banks—while eroding the purchasing power of everyone else.

IV. Taxation, Inflation, and the Flaws of Coercion

The defense of taxation and inflation as necessary tools of governance ignores the fundamental principle that no action, no matter how beneficial to its instigator, can be just if it harms the recipient.

  • Coercion is Not Justice: Theft, murder, and fraud are universally condemned, even if they yield benefits to the perpetrator or the public. To argue that taxation and inflation are justified because they fund public goods or stabilize the economy is no different than justifying theft because it redistributes wealth or fraud because it enables economic activity.

  • A Doctor Breaking Legs: The argument for systemic coercion, if extended logically, would allow a doctor to break legs to guarantee his employment in treating fractures. This is the absurdity of justifying harm for the supposed benefit of the public.

V. The Unjust Foundations of Fiat Currency

At the heart of this debate is the simple question of whether fiat currency and interest-bearing loans are just. They are not.

  • Fiat Currency as a Claim on Nothing: Fiat money represents no real asset, labor, or utility. It is created from nothing and demands repayment in real goods and services, constituting a form of systemic fraud. This violates the principle of justice by extracting value without giving anything of value in return.

  • Interest as Perpetual Extraction: Interest demands the repayment of more than what was borrowed, creating an unpayable debt that enslaves borrowers to the system. This is not a voluntary exchange but a coercive relationship that benefits lenders at the expense of borrowers.

VI. The Moral and Logical Collapse of the Defense

The defense of fiat currency and central banking ultimately rests on consequentialist reasoning: that the system is justified by its purported benefits. This is a dangerous and untenable position.

  • Ends Do Not Justify Means: If central banking and fiat currency are unjust in their foundations, no amount of economic benefit can justify their existence. To argue otherwise is to abandon the principles of justice, fairness, and individual rights.

  • The Fallacy of "Public Good": The invocation of the "public good" to defend coercive systems has been used throughout history to justify the gravest injustices, from slavery to colonialism. The public good cannot be used as a shield to excuse the violation of individual rights.

Conclusion: Justice Over Expedience

Honorable Justices, the defense of fiat currency, usury, and central banking crumbles under scrutiny. It relies on flawed definitions, ignores constitutional limitations, and appeals to economic expedience at the expense of justice. This Court must recognize that no system that violates fundamental rights can be just, no matter how beneficial it may appear. The time has come to restore justice to our monetary system and reject the coercive mechanisms of fiat currency and systemic usury.

Let us build our economy not on fraud and coercion, but on principles of fairness, utility, and justice.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. (2025) Affirmative Opinion in the Voice of Justice Alito

-
Image
  Supreme Court of the United States Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. Opinion of the Court by the voice of Justice Alito Delivered January 14, 2025 Today, this Court renders a decision of profound constitutional and societal importance. At issue is whether the foreclosure proceedings initiated by Alliant Credit Union against Mr. Zachary Moore—based on a mortgage loan derived from fiat currency—violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This case also raises broader questions about the legality of a monetary system that facilitates perpetual debt cycles through fiat currency and usury. After careful consideration, we hold that the foreclosure proceedings, as applied to Mr. Moore, constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights to property and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Further, we find that the systemic exploitation inherent in the fiat currency system and its application to the facts of...
Read more

Citing RICO Violations to stop unlawful debt collections

-
Who is Zach Moore? and what to know about my movement If you’re reading this, take it as a call to prepare—for yourself, your family, and the world around you. At the heart of my movement is a simple but powerful truth:  any contract secured with a lie, or a claim not backed by anything real (like the U.S. dollar and debt), cannot be enforced.  Moreover, those who attempt to collect on these fraudulent contracts are committing crimes and are liable to RICO charges for perpetuating a system built on deception. I’m Zachary Moore, and I’m leading a movement to destroy the U.S. dollar, bankrupt billionaires, and end the tyranny of usury. I grew up in a trailer in Alabama, surrounded by the poverty and oppression that debt creates. I worked my way out, earning $550,000 a year as a top sales consultant, but in 2023, I realized I was part of the problem—a system built on lies, fiat currency, and the exploitation of human labor. So, I walked away. I quit my lucrative job, defaulted on...
Read more

Response to Alliant Credit Union

-
  Re: Loan Number XXXX To whom it may concern, My name is Zachary Moore, owner of the property at [address redacted]. I received a letter in the mail from Alliant Credit Union dated December 15, 2023 citing information regarding a mortgage contract between myself and Alliant. I am challenging the validity of this contract.  As you know, in order for a contract to be valid, both parties must put up valid property for consideration. Without consideration, no contract can be lawfully valid.  This property must be rightfully owned by each party.  In the case of Alliant, the money loaned would need to be an asset on Alliant’s balance sheet prior to closing. As the loanee, I put up my own property for valid consideration. I put up a promissory note representing my ownership of my work and labor, a down payment of nearly $100,000, and title to the property at [address redacted] What property did Alliant put up? Please provide evidence that Alliant provided me, the loaner wi...
Read more