I see where Aristotle and Thomas came in now, thank you.
I said "money has never been and should not be considere sterile" which could be interpreted as either "money has never been, and should not be considered, sterile" or "money has never been, and should not be, considered sterile." I intended the former but it was ambiguous.
Saying "money is sterile" is like trying to divide goods into "essential" and "non-essential" categories. It is futile. All valuation is entirely subjective. Yes, I am echoing Mises and Rothbard because I find their arguments reasonable.
The arguments made in favor of usury are not all fresh rationalizations. See Objections 5-7 in Thomas' discussion. The only new argument is time preference rooted necessarily in human action. It also happens to be the best argument. I would wager you're familiar with the Austrian Business Cycle Theory. Underpinning this theory is the concept that originary interest is not primarily a money matter. Time preference is found throughout the capital structure and not only in loans. Whether you want to call that thing that affects the capital structure interest or not, you have to consider that action takes place in time, that capital formation exchanges lower present consumption for greater future consumption, and that therefore you have to make odd rationalizations to say that investing in-kind for future gain or buying stock in enterprises for future gain is fundamentally different than usury.
The essence of fiat is the decree from authority. So fiat money is such when decreed to be money by some authority. If fiat money were honest money, there would be no need for the authority to decree it as money. It would already be money. It is the counterfeit, non-market nature of the money, the ability for someone to say "this is money" that is fiat. Usury is a separate matter constrained to money-lending and can apply to honest or dishonest monies alike. I can lend fiat or I can lend silver with interest or without interest. Fiat is also distinct from lending. A fiat monetary system can be foisted with lending or without lending undergirding it.
Regarding Scripture.
Moses says in Deuteronomy "You shall not lend on interest to your brother: interest of money, interest of food, interest of anything that is lent on interest. You may charge a foreigner interest; but you shall not charge your brother interest". This prohibition applied to ancient Israelites lending to ancient Israelites, and not ancient Israelites lending to ancient gentiles. So even within this prohibition, we can see that usury in itself is not evil, because of the exception. We also see it is not unique to money loans.
Jesus explained his reason for kicking traders out of the temple in the same verses that describe it.
Matthew says "Jesus entered into the temple of God and drove out all of those who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the money changers’ tables and the seats of those who sold the doves. He said to them, 'It is written, "My house shall be called a house of prayer," but you have made it a den of robbers!'"
Mark says "Jesus entered into the temple and began to throw out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and overthrew the money changers’ tables and the seats of those who sold the doves. He would not allow anyone to carry a container through the temple. He taught, saying to them, 'Isn’t it written, "My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations"? But you have made it a den of robbers!'"
Luke says "He entered into the temple and began to drive out those who bought and sold in it, saying to them, 'It is written, "My house is a house of prayer," but you have made it a "den of robbers"!'"
John says "Jesus went up to Jerusalem. He found in the temple those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting. He made a whip of cords and drove all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers' money and overthrew their tables. To those who sold the doves, he said, 'Take these things out of here! Don't make my Father's house a marketplace!'"
None of these verses mention usury. If we extrapolate that usury is sin from these verses we would also have to extrapolate that selling and buying oxen, sheep, or doves is sin as well. The plain interpretation of the source of Jesus' anger is people were exchanging on the temple grounds which violates the purpose of the temple. It was not only the money-changers, it was sellers of goods. In short, it is more about the temple and less about exchange (or usury).
You might object that usury could apply to goods as well as money. In that case, we come back to the idea that usury is distinct from money and usury is there in all future-for-present exchanges, and is not fundamental to money, not fundamental to fiat money at all.
The only mention Jesus makes of usury is actually in a positive light in the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25, Luke 19).
The Pentateuch applies to the ancient Israelites (perhaps only even a subset of them) and not to Christians. Even supposing it all applied to all Jews and Christians alike, this instance clearly indicates that usury per se is not sinful, due to the distinction between fellow Israelite and gentile. The New Testament nowhere prohibits usury. Solomon's observation "The rich rule over the poor. The borrower is servant to the lender." is just that, and does not mention usury as the root of the slavery, rather borrowing itself.
The Old Testament, especially Proverbs, frequently chides dishonest weights, measures, and scales. Those are also known as fraud, lying, stealing, or counterfeiting.
Regarding bitcoin.
I take Satoshi at his word when he wrote "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution." He didn't mention usury or counterfeiting here. See how many times Satoshi mentions "trusted party" or "counterparty" or "trusted third party" in the whitepaper. The whitepaper can be seen to solve the "trusted third party" problem of payments online.
If usury was evil to the ancients and best minds of history, I doubt they would think of bitcoin in a positive light. Unlike gold and even notes backed by gold, bitcoin was invented out of thin air. Unlike fiat money, however, it is private and voluntary. Its value is found on the market, not by decree. Bitcoin as money is not evil in itself for some of the same reasons that usury is not evil in itself.
Regarding voluntary sin.
I agree that from a catallactic perspective we may allow things that from a moral perspective are wrong. In other words, I agree that even if by the market rules a desparate person may sell his body for money, it is usually still a sinful act. I don't deny that some people are more and less desparate, some people are more and less powerful, and so forth. The assertions that I thought we were debating were whether usury as such is always evil, whether usury is essential to fiat, and whether bitcoin is related to usury.
Hopefully I have made some useful point in this long response that you find helpful. I am delighted by the appeals to Aristotle, Thomas, and Scripture. It is also nice to be challenged to think through reasons regardless of who introduced them to me.
