Farley on Nostr: Banks and financial institutions claim the authority to issue loans and collect ...
Banks and financial institutions claim the authority to issue loans and collect debts, but upon closer examination, their entire system rests on a profound contradiction: they are trading in something that does not exist—future time. Future time is not a tangible asset; it cannot be owned, measured, or transferred. Yet, banks create money out of thin air, loan it into existence, and demand repayment with interest, effectively binding individuals to future labor and resources that have not yet materialized.
When a bank issues a loan, it does not provide any tangible asset of its own. Instead, it creates a claim on the borrower's future productivity—a future that belongs solely to the individual, not the bank. This raises a critical question: How can a bank prove ownership of something that is inherently unownable? How can it demonstrate, in a court of law, that it has the right to collect on a debt that was never backed by any real, tangible asset in the first place?
The legal system enforces these debts as if they are legitimate, but the foundation of this enforcement is built on a fiction: the idea that future time can be owned, loaned, and collected. If challenged, banks would be unable to produce any tangible evidence of the 'time' they claim to have loaned out, because time is not a commodity that can be possessed or transferred. It is an abstract, non-material concept that belongs to no one and everyone simultaneously.
Therefore, the enforcement of debt collection is not based on any legitimate ownership of resources or time, but rather on societal consent and legal frameworks that privilege the power of financial institutions over individuals. By questioning the very basis of this system, we expose its inherent flaws and challenge the legitimacy of debt enforcement. If future time cannot be owned, then no one—not even banks—has the right to claim it as collateral or demand its repayment.
When a bank issues a loan, it does not provide any tangible asset of its own. Instead, it creates a claim on the borrower's future productivity—a future that belongs solely to the individual, not the bank. This raises a critical question: How can a bank prove ownership of something that is inherently unownable? How can it demonstrate, in a court of law, that it has the right to collect on a debt that was never backed by any real, tangible asset in the first place?
The legal system enforces these debts as if they are legitimate, but the foundation of this enforcement is built on a fiction: the idea that future time can be owned, loaned, and collected. If challenged, banks would be unable to produce any tangible evidence of the 'time' they claim to have loaned out, because time is not a commodity that can be possessed or transferred. It is an abstract, non-material concept that belongs to no one and everyone simultaneously.
Therefore, the enforcement of debt collection is not based on any legitimate ownership of resources or time, but rather on societal consent and legal frameworks that privilege the power of financial institutions over individuals. By questioning the very basis of this system, we expose its inherent flaws and challenge the legitimacy of debt enforcement. If future time cannot be owned, then no one—not even banks—has the right to claim it as collateral or demand its repayment.