We want good things. We want more good things to be made. In fact, we want an abundance of good things. So, we reward those who make good things. This is extremely intuitive: much of our society is built on incentivizing creation. Money, for example, and the exchange of goods of equal value, makes it necessary for everyone to contribute to the economy. However, this foundation is flawed.

Counter-intuitively, it is very easy to disguise systems that artificially reduce abundance (called artificial scarcity) as systems that incentivize creation (what I will call abundance incentives).

Money itself is an example of this phenomenon. Money represents value, created through labor, and so those who have money can pay others for their work. Conversely, one who provides goods and services gets money in exchange. If only this is explained, money sounds like an abundance incentive.

But money is issued by authorities, and only then lent to those who do not have it. The scarcity of money — artificially imposed — leads to hoarding, recession cycles, and many other problems. Incentives are created by a money system with an authority, but the will of those who can issue new money — or have accumulated large amounts of money through exploiting its scarcity — is imposed.

There are two kinds of solutions to this problem. The easy answer is to simply remove the system and hope that it was not necessary, like communism. The other solution is creating systems which function differently (without scarcity), like mutual credit, such that everyone is capable of participating in exchange. Both of these situations would be preferable to the exploitation that is made possible by artificial scarcity.

In plain terms, money should not be something some people own — it should be something we all use. This small difference is what set apart artificial scarcity and abundance incentives.

Intellectual property is another obvious system of artificial scarcity. In effect, it rewards those who innovate with legal monopolies. This is a problem for many reasons.

The idea that an individual may have resources, and the knowledge of useful ways to assemble them, but should be punished for assembling them, in order to "protect" another individual (which would not be harmed by this action of arranging resources), is utterly baffling.

The distribution of information is positive-sum: an individual sharing information does not lose anything, but one who receives information does gain something. Necessarily, the enforcement of intellectual property is negative-sum, it can only prevent people from using their knowledge or learning new things. But there is not only detriment during censorship, enforcement must be intrusive too.

To enforce intellectual property, authorities must know that information has been propagated and who has propagated it. The capability of monitoring the flow of information can and will be used for surveillance. Intellectual property is deeply incompatible with freedom of speech even when no censorship is actively performed.

Technically, something is protected. Businesses are protected from competition. This allows companies to charge the highest amount that people are willing to pay for the information, as opposed to the value of the good itself. This additional profit, given to only the owner of the intellectual property, is what is protected.

Is there any reason why this profit should be protected? Does the benefit of the information to the public truly outweigh the price difference and the detriment caused by the enforcement of the monopoly? Would the benefit to the public of the information not be even greater if the information was available at a lower price?

These questions are all hard to answer because it is impossible to determine one objective value for some information. Each individual values information differently, and we can only speculate of alternate universes without these monopolies. The real question is whether the inventor's valuation of their own work should be imposed on all who wish to use the information. There is no reason why this should be the case.

Moreover, almost information is derived from other information. By making the use of information a scarce resource, intellectual property necessarily restricts the advancement of knowledge. Again, incentives are created, but they do not reward abundance, they reduce it, and reward exploitation.

Artificial scarcity is all or nothing. For any kind of artificial scarcity, at least another is necessary to perpetuate it.

For both of the examples above, a police force is necessary for enforcement. The police itself is an example of artificial scarcity. Although it is reassuring to have a dedicated group which says will protect you, there is no reason to believe such a group is necessary, or even beneficial.

A police force has power, it is given privileges. The existence of these privileges incentivizes those who seek privilege to join the police force. However, there is no incentive for those who legitimately want to help. Human emotion naturally incentivizes us to protect one another, but doing such is discouraged, and a system of power is instead given privilege. Without a police force, those who want to help others could choose to do just that, without regards for some arbitrary code imposed in order to reduce abundance.

Our justice system, itself an example of artificial scarcity, enforces other scarcities such as the money monopoly and intellectual property. Conversely, their labor (of reducing abundance) is compensated by the state, issuer of money, sometimes through taxation, itself enforced by the justice system. And so artificial scarcity is a vicious circle of self-reinforcing destruction.

If we are to believe that a centralized police force is necessary, then recessions, wealth inequality, and poverty are equally necessary.

Technology is a great way to escape authority. The creation of non-violent alternatives allows us to create abundance regardless of attempted restrictions. However, we do not yet have solutions to all our problems.

Sadly, cryptocurrency does not solve artificial scarcity in any way. Instead of a central bank, a piece of code takes control of issuance, but issuance is still centralized. Cryptocurrency in its current form, like fiat currency, still creates hierarchies. However, this is not an inherent problem of blockchains, and it is very much possible to create mutual credit using permissionless databases like blockchains.

Failures like Bitcoin should not discourage us from further experimentation. Every time we create a new system and it fails to solve the problem, we learn and get closer to a world without artificial scarcity. These failed experiments are sometimes comparatively better than the currently imposed systems, and may still be preferable.

The purpose of an economic system is to distribute resources to individuals. Obviously, abundance should be incentivized, and not exploitation. Power makes this impossible.

Artificial scarcity is the precondition and the consequence of systems of power. Power is necessarily destructive. It should be opposed not only to fulfill an arbitrary philosophical need for freedom, but because its existence in reality necessitates the destruction of resources, freedom, and opportunities to sustain itself.

We want good things. We want more good things to be made. In fact, we want an abundance of good things. So, we reward those who make good things. This is extremely intuitive: much of our society is built on incentivizing creation. Money, for example, and the exchange of goods of equal value, makes it necessary for everyone to contribute to the economy. However, this foundation is flawed.

Counter-intuitively, it is very easy to disguise systems that artificially reduce abundance (called artificial scarcity) as systems that incentivize creation (what I will call abundance incentives).

Money itself is an example of this phenomenon. Money represents value, created through labor, and so those who have money can pay others for their work. Conversely, one who provides goods and services gets money in exchange. If only this is explained, money sounds like an abundance incentive.

But money is issued by authorities, and only then lent to those who do not have it. The scarcity of money — artificially imposed — leads to hoarding, recession cycles, and many other problems. Incentives are created by a money system with an authority, but the will of those who can issue new money — or have accumulated large amounts of money through exploiting its scarcity — is imposed.

There are two kinds of solutions to this problem. The easy answer is to simply remove the system and hope that it was not necessary, like communism. The other solution is creating systems which function differently (without scarcity), like mutual credit, such that everyone is capable of participating in exchange. Both of these situations would be preferable to the exploitation that is made possible by artificial scarcity.

In plain terms, money should not be something some people own — it should be something we all use. This small difference is what set apart artificial scarcity and abundance incentives.

Intellectual property is another obvious system of artificial scarcity. In effect, it rewards those who innovate with legal monopolies. This is a problem for many reasons.

The idea that an individual may have resources, and the knowledge of useful ways to assemble them, but should be punished for assembling them, in order to "protect" another individual (which would not be harmed by this action of arranging resources), is utterly baffling.

The distribution of information is positive-sum: an individual sharing information does not lose anything, but one who receives information does gain something. Necessarily, the enforcement of intellectual property is negative-sum, it can only prevent people from using their knowledge or learning new things. But there is not only detriment during censorship, enforcement must be intrusive too.

To enforce intellectual property, authorities must know that information has been propagated and who has propagated it. The capability of monitoring the flow of information can and will be used for surveillance. Intellectual property is deeply incompatible with freedom of speech even when no censorship is actively performed.

Technically, something is protected. Businesses are protected from competition. This allows companies to charge the highest amount that people are willing to pay for the information, as opposed to the value of the good itself. This additional profit, given to only the owner of the intellectual property, is what is protected.

Is there any reason why this profit should be protected? Does the benefit of the information to the public truly outweigh the price difference and the detriment caused by the enforcement of the monopoly? Would the benefit to the public of the information not be even greater if the information was available at a lower price?

These questions are all hard to answer because it is impossible to determine one objective value for some information. Each individual values information differently, and we can only speculate of alternate universes without these monopolies. The real question is whether the inventor's valuation of their own work should be imposed on all who wish to use the information. There is no reason why this should be the case.

Moreover, almost information is derived from other information. By making the use of information a scarce resource, intellectual property necessarily restricts the advancement of knowledge. Again, incentives are created, but they do not reward abundance, they reduce it, and reward exploitation.

Artificial scarcity is all or nothing. For any kind of artificial scarcity, at least another is necessary to perpetuate it.

For both of the examples above, a police force is necessary for enforcement. The police itself is an example of artificial scarcity. Although it is reassuring to have a dedicated group which says will protect you, there is no reason to believe such a group is necessary, or even beneficial.

A police force has power, it is given privileges. The existence of these privileges incentivizes those who seek privilege to join the police force. However, there is no incentive for those who legitimately want to help. Human emotion naturally incentivizes us to protect one another, but doing such is discouraged, and a system of power is instead given privilege. Without a police force, those who want to help others could choose to do just that, without regards for some arbitrary code imposed in order to reduce abundance.

Our justice system, itself an example of artificial scarcity, enforces other scarcities such as the money monopoly and intellectual property. Conversely, their labor (of reducing abundance) is compensated by the state, issuer of money, sometimes through taxation, itself enforced by the justice system. And so artificial scarcity is a vicious circle of self-reinforcing destruction.

If we are to believe that a centralized police force is necessary, then recessions, wealth inequality, and poverty are equally necessary.

Technology is a great way to escape authority. The creation of non-violent alternatives allows us to create abundance regardless of attempted restrictions. However, we do not yet have solutions to all our problems.

Sadly, cryptocurrency does not solve artificial scarcity in any way. Instead of a central bank, a piece of code takes control of issuance, but issuance is still centralized. Cryptocurrency in its current form, like fiat currency, still creates hierarchies. However, this is not an inherent problem of blockchains, and it is very much possible to create mutual credit using permissionless databases like blockchains.

Failures like Bitcoin should not discourage us from further experimentation. Every time we create a new system and it fails to solve the problem, we learn and get closer to a world without artificial scarcity. These failed experiments are sometimes comparatively better than the currently imposed systems, and may still be preferable.

The purpose of an economic system is to distribute resources to individuals. Obviously, abundance should be incentivized, and not exploitation. Power makes this impossible.

Artificial scarcity is the precondition and the consequence of systems of power. Power is necessarily destructive. It should be opposed not only to fulfill an arbitrary philosophical need for freedom, but because its existence in reality necessitates the destruction of resources, freedom, and opportunities to sustain itself.