About deliberate disinformation?

Well and widely accepted deliberate disinformation?

I only asked ChatGPT three questions and it crashed. The third challenged its assertion in the second lengthy and unsatisfactory answer that State has no moral or ethical obligation to compensate citizens for our involuntary servitude accepting State currency in exchange for our labours and property.

Economics doesn't acknowledge that fiat money is an option to claim any human labours or property offered or available at asking or negotiated price, in spite of that being its precise and only function. Other asserted 'functions' are just counting it. Unnecessary complication to help hide the foundational inequity.

We don't get paid our option fees.

State asserts ownership of access to human labours and property. Licenses that ownership to Central Bankers who sell options to claim any human labors or property offered or available at asking or negotiated price through discount windows as State currency, collecting and keeping our rightful option fees as interest on money creation loans when nothing is loaned. Don't earn interest loaning nothing, and they charge separately for every service.

They have sold access to our labours and property without our express informed consent, compensation, or knowledge. A third party selling options to purchase a commodity they don't own without express informed consent, compensation, or knowledge of rightful owners is fraud and theft, isn't it?

I don't remember exactly what my first two questions were either. Didn't write them down first, and the exchange disappeared when it crashed. I assume that I asked about an ethical administrative correction for the current process of money creation. A rule of inclusion for international banking regulation that establishes an ethical global human labours futures market, achieves other stated goals, and no one has suggested logical or moral argument against adopting in two decades of inquiry:

'All sovereign debt, money creation, shall be financed with equal Shares of global fiat credit held in trust with local deposit banks, administered by local fiduciaries and actuaries exclusively for secure sovereign investment at a fixed and sustainable rate, that may be claimed by each adult human being on the planet as part of an actual local social contract.'

Claim is that adopting the rule, fixing the value of a Share at £1,000,000 equivalent and the sovereign rate for money creation at 1,25% per year, will establish a stable, sustainable, regenerative, inclusive, abundant, and ethical global economic system with mathematical certainty.

Economists really won't talk about it in any way. I've been asking them for a moral or ethical justification for the current process of money creation for that time without any manifesting. Karl Widerquist the Georgetown University economics professor and UBI 'advocate' said my questions were incoherent. He, perhaps they, can't imagine why the foundational enterprise of human trade, money creation, should be moral or ethical. Or they're deluded, or complicit.

Our simple acceptance of money/options in exchange for our labours is a valuable service providing the only value of fiat money and unearned income for Central Bankers and their friends. Our valuable service is compelled by State and pragmatism at a minimum to acquire money to pay taxes. Compelled service, involuntary servitude, is literal slavery. Violates UDHR, pretty much every declaration of human rights and State Constitution, including the thirteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Structural economic enslavement of humanity is not hyperbole.

We feel it viscerally without being aware of the structure. The cognitive dissonance affected by observing relative incompetents running things provides fertile ground for conspiracy theories and other lies told to divide and distract from the foundational inequity.

Seems likely that a sufficient number of people can demand and have adopted one rule for international banking regulation that achieves stated goals and no one has logical or moral argument against adopting, by talking about it. By compelling those authorities to talk about it, because they have no logical or moral argument against.

Then we see the effects of establishing a scientific basis for economics and an inclusive system of abundance, and what that does to LLMs.