From the book: "The international regulation of monetary system" by Giacinto Auriti
Once shown that the currency symbol is nothing else that the manifestation of a formal legal case, it is necessary to highlight some essential characteristics of this "phenomenon". It should first be noted that the formal manifestation differs from the natural manifestation because, while this coincides with the phenomenon and it subsist contextually with it, the formal manifestation does not always coincide with the creative moment of the submitted legal case.
You may have in fact the concurrency between form and legal content, when the normative will is manifested by conclusive behaviour, eg. the implicit contract. When the formal manifestation is instead consolidates into a creative process of the symbol, this can not be contextual to its content. Usually it is that the parties, before they want a particular legal relationship, and then manifest it. It consider the case of composition of negotiation acts that is completed after the parties have agreed the object. Here you have a chronological sequence between the acceptance of the contract and its formal manifestation. For the most the juridical experience put us in front of the cases in which the formal event is consecutive to the activity volitional creator of the rule.
In the monetary manifestation it occurs, instead, a reverse of chronological order between the creative moment of the legal case and the creative moment of its formal manifestation (monetary symbol). In fact it occurs in practice that the central bank, by printing monetary symbols, prepares the legal form which has then its content of conventional value at the time when the first borrower, accepting as money the symbol, he gives the corresponding value. Who in fact cause the value of money is not who print or issue, but who accepts it as a means of payment, that is, the community of citizens. The first borrower of money, under the thumb of conditioned reflex to consider the formal manifestation successive to the creation of its legal content, has considered the currency already existing as asset in the hands of the body of issue, while they had nothing else that the mere symbols still empty of their monetary value.
This is explained as well as initial equivocation, that you have not connected the money to the genus of the legal case, both derived a macroscopic reversal of legal and accounting truth at the time of issue the money.
The first borrower of money, not realizing that it was himself, as a member of the community, to create the conventional monetary value by the mere fact of accepting the money, was induced to accept it, not free as would have been right, but with the counter-part of debt.
"It is happened in this way that central banks have expropriated and indebted the national communities because they have issued by lending money, and lend money is a prerogative of the owner. In other words, the first the borrower of money has considered the monetary value as existing in the hands of those who controlled the production of symbols, setting the stage for a paradoxical parasitism operated by central banks to the detriment of national communities. The currency came into existence as an intangible asset so burdened with debt, so that the legal nature of
this symbol is to build up debt and precarious ownership of money for the bearer, such as precarious is the ownership of the debtor, because he has it until such time as the returns to the creditor. The real dominus (dominant) is only the creditor: the bank.
This situation was mitigated by the nature of things when the symbol was commodity money (gold), because, existing gold in the market, was consolidating in the hands of the bearer of the goods a potential value of a horizontal vision of monetary sovereignty of which also participated the market. When money became the symbol at no cost, it exploded in a vertical structure, an absolute and unlimited hegemony of monetary issuing bodies.
Never before, then, there is the need to prepare a legal regulation on monetary values, after has define the nature, causes and characteristics, as we have said, of an intangible asset as legal case. It should first be noted that the ownership of the money must be declared at the time of issuance, exclusively attributable to the national community, because it is only on this premise that you will be able to determine who should be the owner, who is the creditor or the debtor and it will finally can determine to who should be given that potential value in which consolidates the monetary sovereignty. In the formalization of the symbol the expression of monetary value should not be signed by the Governor of the central bank, as at this day, but by the President of State, which is the only one who can legitimately represent the collective ownership of the currency.
It will then competence of economists to propose on criteria of rigid technical discretion, the amount of currency to be issued in order to comply with the stability of the monetary value, indispensable quality of every unit, but shall, instead, be the exclusive competence of political sovereignty and the legislative function determine of who should be the ownership of the money, and who the creditor and who the debtor. This in order to purify the monetary systems from those fundamentals misunderstandings that have until now allowed some unacceptable forms of arbitrary depletion and parasitism, to the detriment of national communities.
For this, there is the need to establish within the rule of law a "Department of the currency" – in replacement of the central bank - to allow clear transparency with the production and distribution of money among all members of the national community.
Extract from "The international regulation of Monetary System" by Giacinto Auriti