You're arguing semantics while ignoring the actual issue. The question isn't whether 0% usury "exists".. it's whether we can imagine finance without extraction. If interest is "necessary" then why isn't kindness?
Btw Aristotle's definition of usury would interest you (pun intended).
I said nothing of kindness's necessity, and in my mind no implications have been made one way or the other regarding that. You are arguing within your own framework if ideas that I do not share.
What is extraction to you? What qualifies it, what are some examples?
The primal definition of usury, wealth which begets further wealth aka profiting from need, doesn't need to be an idea you or I share, it is a timeless idea. All I am arguing for is 0% usury, something last seen only in Ghadafi's Libya. Libya is a good example.. the last among the rare-few 0% mortgage rate nations to falter following the Bretton Woods termination.
What is extraction? Distraction preventing traction resulting in action. It’s the friction that impedes free exchange, the artificial barriers that divert wealth toward those who create nothing. What qualifies it? Any mechanism that enforces dependence rather than enabling sovereignty. #Bitcoin
Fascinating. You seem to be onto roughly the same goal as me, from a moral and utility standpoint, but you are depicting it as a strictly ethical phenomenon, that is, a dynamic that can be seen directly between interacting people. You're perceiving an external representation/indicator that I am only inferring through multiple steps of inspection into a man's thought patterns, his failure to allow for less friction in exchange by exercising his reason and pursuing his self interest within the NAP.
