Power of Rules

Lucifer Effect Series

The Lucifer Effect by Zimbardo, 2007, Excerpts

Rules are formal, simplified ways of controlling informal complex behavior. They work by externalizing regulations, by establishing what is necessary, acceptable, and rewarded and what is unacceptable and therefore punished. Over time, rules come to have an arbitrary life of their own and the force of legal authority even when they are no longer relevant, are vague, or change with the whims of the enforcers.

Absolute ethics are embodied in communal codes of conduct. These codes are often based upon adherence to a set of explicit principles, as in the Ten Commandments or the Bill of Rights. Such absolute ethics allow no degree of freedom that might justify means to an end or circumstances that might qualify instances where the principle is suspended or applied in an altered, watered-down form. In the extreme, no extenuating circumstances can justify an abrogation of the ethical standard.

Some rules are essential for the effective coordination of social behavior, such as audiences listening to performers speak, drivers stopping at red traffic lights, and people not cutting into queues. However, many rules are merely screens for dominance by those who make them or those charged with enforcing them. Naturally, the last rule always includes punishment for violation of the other rules, and there must be someone or some agency willing and able to administer such punishment, ideally doing so in a public arena that can serve to deter other potential rule breakers.

The System/Situation

Lucifer Effect Series

The Lucifer Effect by Zimbardo, 2007, Excerpts

Over time, Systems come to have a historical foundation and a political and economic power structure that governs and directs the behavior of many people within its sphere of influence. At some point, the System becomes an autonomous entity, independent of those who initially started it or even of those in apparent authority within its power structure. The System comes to develop a culture of its own involving extensive networks of people, their expectations, norms, policies, and laws. The program, policies, and standard operating procedures that are developed to support an ideology become an essential component of the System. Ideology is a slogan or proposition that legitimizes whatever means are necessary to attain an ultimate goal.

System Power involves authorization or institutionalized permission to behave in prescribed ways or to forbid and punish actions that are contrary to them. It provides the “higher authority” that gives validation to playing new roles, following new rules, and taking actions that would ordinarily be constrained by pre-existing laws, norms, morals, and ethics. Such validation usually comes cloaked in the mantle of ideology.

Situations are created by Systems. If you are placed in a strange and novel cruel Situation within a powerful System, you will not emerge as the same person who entered that crucible of human nature. We all want to believe in our inner power, our sense of personal agency, to resist external situational forces. For many, that belief of personal power to resist powerful situational and systemic forces is little more than a reassuring illusion of invulnerability. Paradoxically, maintaining that illusion only serves to make one more vulnerable to manipulation by failing to be sufficiently vigilant against attempts of undesired influence subtly practiced on them.

The situational approach should encourage us all to share a profound sense of humility when we are trying to understand “unthinkable,” “unimaginable,” “senseless” acts of evil – violence, vandalism, suicidal terrorism, torture, or rape. Instead of immediately embracing the high moral ground that distances us good folks from those bad ones, the situational approach preaches that any deed, for good or evil, that any being has ever done, you and I could also do – given the same situational forces.

Stanford Prison Experiment Mirrors Abu Ghraib

Lucifer Effect Series

The Lucifer Effect by Zimbardo, 2007, Excerpts

The college students role-playing guards and prisoners in a mock prison experiment conducted at Stanford University in the summer of 1971 were mirrored in the real guards and real prison in Iraq of 2003. Not only had I seen such events, I had been responsible for creating the conditions that allowed such abuses to flourish. The experiment succeeded all too well in creating some of what is worst in real prisons, but the findings came at the expense of human suffering. Compared to the toxic and lethal nature of real civilian and military prisons, our Stanford Prison was relatively benign.

I realized watching some of these images made me relive the worst scenes; the nakedness; the sexually humiliating games. These comparable abuses had been imposed by college student guards on their college student prisoners. I knew that in the Abu Ghraib Prison, powerful forces had to have been at work. It was apparent to me that the System was now struggling mightily to conceal its own complicity in torture.

The primary lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment is that Situation matters. Some situations can exert such powerful influence over us that we can be led to behave in ways we would not, could not, predict was possible in advance. We undergo significant character transformations when caught up in the crucible of social forces. Social situations have profound effects on the behavior and mental functioning of individuals, groups, and national leaders.

Stanford Prison Experiment

The Lucifer Effect Series

The Lucifer Effect by Zimbardo, 2007, Excerpts

The Lucifer Effect examines the processes of transformation at work when good or ordinary people do bad or evil things. Evil consists in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize, or destroy innocent others – or using one’s authority and systematic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf. Evil is knowing better but doing worse.

No person or state is incapable of evil. This behavior lies just under the surface of any of us. Each of us has the potential to be saint or sinner, altruistic or selfish, gentle or cruel, submissive or dominant, sane or mad, good or evil. We are born with a full range of capacities, each of which is activated and developed depending on the social and cultural circumstances that govern our lives. The potential for perversion is inherent in the very processes that make human beings do all the wonderful things we do.

Some of the world’s evil result from ordinary people operating in circumstances that selectively elicit bad behavior from their natures. They are so evil we couldn’t ever see ourselves doing the same thing. But if you consider the terrible pressure under which people were operating, then you automatically reassert their humanity – and that becomes alarming. You are forced to look at the situation and say, “What would I have done?” Sometimes the answer is not encouraging.

It is through understanding how such forces operate that we can resist, oppose, and prevent them from leading us into undesirable temptation. Such knowledge can liberate us from subjugation to the mighty grasp of conformity, compliance, persuasion, and other forms of social influence and coercion. Although evil can exist in any setting, we look most closely into its breeding ground in prisons and wars. They typically become crucibles, in which authority, power, and dominance are blended and, when covered over by secrecy, suspend our humanity, and rob us of the qualities we humans value most: caring, kindness, cooperation, and love.

Stanford Prison Experiment Mirrors Abu Ghraib

The System/Situation

Power of Rules

 

Role Based Actions

Conformity

Moral Disengagement

Dehumanization

Enemies of the State

 

Power Elite Propaganda

War Transforms

The War on Terror

Ingrid Betancourt - FARC Prisoner 6 Years

 

Heroism

Keys to Resistance

Milgram’s Authority Study

Further Lucifer Effect Resources

 

On Killing Series

U.S. Army and CIA Interrogation Manuals

KUBARK Manual [1963]

Human Resources Exploitation Training Manual [1983]

 

The Lucifer Effect by Zimbardo, 2007, Excerpts

Psychological analysis is not “excusiology.” Individuals and groups who behave immorally or illegally must still be held responsible for their complicity and crimes. However, the situational and systemic factors that caused their behavior must be taken into account.

 

Crime of 1873

Gold slays Silver

In the late 1800s, an ongoing battle between silver and gold for Legal Tender supremacy was being played out to conclusion. Silver was widely traded for routine transactions, gold for large transactions. In the bimetallic economy, the value ratio between silver and gold [historically 10:1 to 15:1 for millenniums] was a moving target determined by the Market. Law continuously tried to legislate and fix the value ratio to accommodate debt contracts. Since both gold and silver were Legal Tender, arbitragers could, and did, make plays on slight differences between the Market ratio and the Legal ratio that allowed debtors to pay off debts at the expense of the lender. Both forms of money could not coexist as Legal Tender if debt contracts were to function, one had to go.

The Crime of 1873 is best explained by Alexander del Mar [1836-1926] - a political economist, historian and author. He was born in New York City, 1836, and was educated as a Civil and Mining Engineer at Polytechnic. He became the Director of the Bureau of Statistics of the United States and Mining Commissioner to the United States Monetary Commission of 1876 and nominated for Secretary of Treasury.

In the History of Monetary Systems 1895, Alexander del Mar lists the Laws that were concurrently passed in the United States, Europe, Russia, Japan, India, and South America to undermine the Legal Tender status of silver. This is the Crime of 1873. Gold and Law combined to undermine Silver on an international scale, and gold became the singular form of Legal Tender throughout the world. Debt and taxes still had to be paid with Legal Tender, now gold only, no more arbitrage games. Silver took on a commodity status and was greatly devalued, no longer accepted as Legal Tender for debt and taxes. This was a truly spectacular collaborative conspiring effort. But alas, eventually, even gold had to drop out the Legal Tender race, not able to keep up with the exponential growth demands of Legal Tender.

History of Monetary Systems by Alexander Del Mar, 1895, Excerpts

Crime of 1873 – The New Mint Code

There is no mistaking the identity of that golden thread which runs through the Latin Union Codes of 1867, the British Mint Code of 1870, the German Mint Code of 1871, the New Mint Code of the United States of 1873, and the Codes of numerous other countries. It is of precisely the same issue in all of them.

France and the Latin Union - A conference between the four states whose monetary system rests on a numeration by francs - France, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy - resulted in the Latin Monetary union of December 23rd, 1865. When the international delegates met again [June 17th, 1867], it discussed the entire monetary question, and carried a resolution in favor of what is called gold monometallism in the shape of a New Mint Code. In 1873, France and the Latin Union limited the coinage of silver.

Great Britain - By the Act of 1816, the mints were closed to the private coinage of silver, and all silver coins, whether light of heavy, were limited in tender. In 1870, a New Mint Code was enacted.

Germany - On December 4th, 1871, an Act stopped the further Private Coinage of full legal-tender silver and ordered a new coinage of gold pieces of full legal-tender. The German Act of 1873 suspended the Private Coinage of silver. All new silver coins were limited in tender.

Portugal and Brazil - Portugal in 1854 copied the British System of 1816, suspended the Private Coinage of silver, limited the legal-tender of silver.

Scandinavia - On September 20th, 1872, a monetary union was adopted by Sweden, Norway and Denmark, which was followed by a New Mint Code. Under this code the private coinage of silver was suspended, and the legal-tender of silver coins limited.

Japan - In 1872 this state adopted a New Mint Code, forbade the Private Coinage of silver, limited the legal-tender of silver and adopted what is known as "the gold standard." In 1878 after "the gold standard" had duly departed from the country, the full legal-tender of silver coins was restored and Private Coinage again permitted. In 1894 the Private Coinage of silver was again suspended.

Holland - The laws of May 21st, 1873, limited the legal-tender of silver coins.

Italy - Under a renewal of the Latin Monetary Union dated January 31st, 1874, and the law of July 17th, 1875, the Crown limited the legal-tender of silver coins.

Spain - The law of August 20th, 1876, suspended the Private Coinage of silver, except as to metal produced by the mines of Spain.

Russia - The law of November 13-15, 1876, adopted gold coins as sole full legal-tenders, and reduced the legal-tender of silver coins.

Austro-Hungary - The decree of March, 1879, suspended the Private Coinage of silver, but did not limit the legal-tender of silver coins.

Turkey - In 1882 full legal-tender was limited to gold coins.

British India - An order Council, dated 23rd June, 1893, suspended the Private Coinage of silver.

Argentine Republic - The law of September 29th, 1875, authorized the Private Coinage of gold, admitted certain foreign gold coins to full legal-tendership, limited the legal-tender of silver coins and forbade the Private Coinage of silver.

Chili - Law of November 26th, 1892, stopped the Private Coinage of silver, limited the legal-tender of silver.

United States of America - The New Mint Code of February 12th, 1873, destroyed the Private Coinage of silver by indirection, in omitting the word "dollar" from the empowering clause relating to silver coins. December 1st, 1873, the Code Commissioners made an unauthorized and unwarranted alteration of the law by limiting the legal-tender of "all" silver coins, including the outstanding silver dollars, which had been full legal-tenders since the foundation of the Republic. Both these Acts (of 1873) were passed during a suspension of coin payments, and without eliciting public attention. This surreptitious legislation was not discovered, nor did it attract public attention until 1875-6.

Mr. Carlisle, since Secretary of the Treasury, said in the House of Representatives, February 21st, 1878, "The conspiracy which seems to have been formed here and in Europe to destroy by legislation and otherwise from three-sevenths to one-half of the metallic money of the world, is the most gigantic crime of this or any other age. The consummation of such a scheme would ultimately entail more misery upon the human race than all the wars, pestilences and famines that ever occurred in the history of the world." Mr. John Jay Knox, one of the officials who in 1869-70 lent his assistance to the preparation of the American Mint Code, when the matter was brought home to him acknowledged his part in it, and boasted that he was "proud of his work."

From the foregoing recital it will be observed that the practical political outcome of the Gold Movement of 1865-73 has been to concentrate the gold coins in the world banks of four or five principal States.

The election of 1896, between Williams Jennings Bryant and McKinley, was all about whether silver or gold was going to be the preferred form of Legal Tender. Bryant delivered his famous ‘Cross of Gold’ speech.

"You shall not press down upon the brow of labor a crown of thorns.

You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

Gold won the election, silver’s last hurrah. Eventually the growth of debt outstripped the growth capacity of gold, and Legal Tender had to disconnect itself from gold, no longer a commodity based money. Money to became Fiat Legal Tender: the perfect form of money for a debt based monetary system, and a severely flawed form of money.

2025 Followup: This entry was originally published before the availability of AI. So, now that it is available, asked ChaGPT about the Crime of 1873.

ChatGPT: Describe The Crime of 1873

(Bolding by ChatGPT)

The “Crime of 1873” refers to a controversial decision by the United States Congress to demonetize silver and effectively place the U.S. on a de facto gold standard through the Coinage Act of 1873. The term “crime” was coined later by critics who felt the move hurt farmers, miners, and debtors in favor of bankers and industrialists.

 

⸻

 

 Background:

 

Prior to 1873, the U.S. operated under a bimetallic standard, where both gold and silver were used as legal tender, with a fixed ratio between the two. This allowed people to use either metal to back currency.

 

⸻

 

 What the Coinage Act of 1873 Did:

• Ended the free coinage of silver, meaning individuals could no longer take silver bullion to the mint and have it struck into legal tender coins.

• Removed the silver dollar from the list of authorized coins.

• Introduced new coins (like the Trade Dollar) and reorganized the mint system.

 

Although the Act itself was not secretive, the implications weren’t widely understood at the time, especially among silver miners and the agricultural population.

 

⸻

 

 The Aftermath:

• The U.S. shifted toward the gold standard, which contracted the money supply.

• This hit debtors and farmers hard because it made money scarcer and more valuable, increasing the burden of debt.

• Western silver miners, in particular, were furious because demand for silver dropped sharply.

• Critics—especially in the populist and free silver movements—labeled it the “Crime of 1873”, claiming it was a conspiracy by Eastern bankers and politicians.

 

⸻

 

 Political Impact:

• The issue of silver vs. gold became central to American politics for decades.

• It fueled movements like the Free Silver Movement and influenced figures such as William Jennings Bryan, who famously gave the “Cross of Gold” speech in 1896.

 

As Del Mar documented, it was a Legal subterfuge orchestrated by Gold to remove Silver as Legal Tender, greatly devaluing Silver which was widely used by the populace (middle class), and caused strife to the populace. Huzzah!

So, just how widespread was this Legal Subterfuge?

ChatGPT: Were similar laws passed in other countries regarding gold and silver at the same time frame?

Yes — several other countries made similar moves during the late 19th century, transitioning away from bimetallism (gold and silver) toward a gold standard. The U.S. “Crime of 1873” was part of a broader global trend, often referred to as the “move to gold”. Here’s how it played out elsewhere:

 

⸻

 

 Global Shift Toward the Gold Standard

 

1. Germany (1871–1873)

• After its victory in the Franco-Prussian War, Germany received a large gold indemnity from France.

• In 1871, Germany began demonetizing silver and adopted the gold mark as part of the Coinage Act of 1873, effectively going on a gold standard.

• This move influenced other countries to follow suit.

 

2. France and the Latin Monetary Union

• France, along with Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland, formed the Latin Monetary Union (LMU) in the 1860s, which was based on a bimetallic standard.

• However, the LMU suspended silver coinage in 1874, due to the declining value of silver.

• Over time, these countries effectively shifted to gold monometallism, even though the LMU didn’t formally abandon silver until much later.

 

3. The Netherlands

• The Netherlands adopted the gold standard in 1875, ending free coinage of silver and shifting away from bimetallism.

 

4. Scandinavia

• Sweden, Denmark, and Norway formed the Scandinavian Monetary Union in 1873, adopting a gold standard and abandoning silver.

 

5. United Kingdom

• The UK was already on a de facto gold standard since 1821, formalized with the Gold Standard Act of 1844.

• Britain’s early adoption of gold influenced global economic policy.

 

There’s only one book where I’ve seen a list and that’s by author Alexander Del Mar’s History of Monetary Systems 1895 listed above. ChatGPT missed Italy, Turkey, Russia, Japan, India and all of South America according to Del Mar, hmm. Still, ChatGPT confirms the Legal subterfuge was orchestrated on a global scale by Gold to screw Silver. 

So, Gold orchestrated a worldwide cartel of Lawyers to make The Crime of 1873 happen. These Lawyers were already embedded in these countries to pull this off, an amazing feat of long term planning and Legal subterfuge. Who were/are they, what firms did/do they work for?

Gold's last hurrah isn't over yet, it now has a new messiah with ambitions, and governs an apparatus, far exceeding that of past Gold kingdoms. Midas would be jealous. Silver needs a revival.

 Coinage Act of 1873 - Wikipedia – questionably slanted.

The Form of Money -- A Treatise

Money is the lowest common denominator of valuation among a society, the blood of trade, primary to societal interaction, and should be perfect in concept and form. If the form of money is not perfect in concept and form, societal stress will eventually ensue with potentially horrific consequences if ignored. Money is not the root of all evil; however, flawed money is the root of significant evils.

Money has had many forms over the millenniums, extending long before written history. Some remnants of those ancient forms of money remain with us today: the penny looks copper, the quarter and dime look silver, and nickel is supposed to be nickel, and the dollar coin looks gold, testimony to the endurance of the ancient forms of money. The transition from these ancient forms to the now dominant form, Legal Tender, birthed 2,600 years ago by King Croesus, has been a prolonged epic of consolidating monetary control by nation/states and has been the prime driver of Western Civilization growth.

Legal Tender is a legal contrivance, and when issued in the form of debt is nothing more than a pyramid/ponzi scheme. The quantification of debt wrongfully applies the algebraic concept of exponential growth - compounding interest - upon money. The distinction between usury and interest is an arbitrary legal determination with no basis in mathematics. Nothing can grow forever at an ever-increasing rate. As time moves on, the emphasis of ever-increasing growth becomes omnipresent, is quantified and institutionalized in the societal structure, encouraging over consumption, over development, and excessive expectations, pushing economic stress to its upper limit of expansion, eventually inciting conflict and spawning War to insure growth.

Economic systems of capitalism, communism, socialism, imperialism, colonialism, totalitarianism, fascism, nazism, monarchism, corporatism, and all other centralist monetary-isms maintain the monopolized control of money, and hence the control of society itself, through their own brand of Legal Tender that excludes other forms of money from the Market.

Today, Legal Tender is a near global reality, an epochal consolidation of Markets, heading exponentially towards a global conclusion. Legal Tender is a severely flawed form of money, debt money, and has skewed the concepts of ownership, institutionalized into Law and Enforcement.

The eventual conclusion of this monetary epoch, the triggering event, and the ensuing transition to the next, offers extreme potential of good and bad, impacting everyone and rippling for generations to come. Beyond Legal Tender is a truly Free Market where money is adaptable and flexible, in balance with individual needs, societal needs, environmental needs, and the needs of the greater reality.

Money Defined

The Market    

Minting Money

Money and Interest

Origination of Legal Tender

Shaking Off of Burdens

Religions and Usury

Civilizations and Usury

Social Groups and Money

An Alternate Form of Money


Other Money Perspectives

Capital Structure Flaw of Corporations