The principle of relativity as defined by Albert Einstein postulates that ” the laws of physics express themselves identically (have the same shape) in all and every referentials” (inertial referential or not). We call it also “principle of symmetry” or “covariance”. The principle does not mean that all the observers measure the same thing, but that the laws of physics that you establish must, following their transformation from one to another referential, have the same general shape. So the measures are well different from one observer to the other, the only one invariable is the speed of light.
For the economy I have extended this principle to the notion of money, “money, as a universal code that rules over the economic exchanges, must works identically in any referential” and of value “any individual is free to estimate what is value and what is not”.
In economy, any couple observer/referential is an individual within his monetary zone, and principles must be valid and have the same form, whatever the planned spatio-temporal position is. It is about applying the 1st article of the Declaration of Human Rights regarding the equality of right between individuals, applying it not only to the code that rules the common money, but also to the relative measure of all values, which is also the understanding of individual’s freedom of choice regarding the value, at the level of its production as well as its exchange.
Saying it in other words “no individual must be privileged toward judgment and measure of value”.
We cannot either establish a coherent theoretical overview without having specified fundamental liberties toward whose it refer to. Those liberties are missing from the classical theories for the wrong reason they ignore them.
Value means any physical or not, energy, spacial or temporal economic good. For example, we can attribute a value to a fruit, to electricity, a software, a terrain or by teaching. The principle of relativity denies any absolute measurement of value. Any value fluctuates relatively to the individual that uses it, produces it or exchanges it, and thus fluctuates in the considered space-time.
The money is a common accounting and exchange tool to all citizens of the same economic zone (by extension we could say “universal” by meaning, within the considered monetary union).
The principle of freedom must comply with any present and future individual and allows to define the three fundamental economic freedoms in form of the following fundamental axioms:
Any citizen is free to exchange with others “in the money”
As freedom is defined as non-nuisance, we must not fall into the basic and logical error which would consist in interpreting the economic freedoms as the freedom to violate others’ property or to produce or exchange which should not be permitted by Law.
So how can we interpret the “resources access freedom”? We must interpret this under the angle of non-nuisance as in the “Lockean proviso”:
“When someone appropriates himself an object, there must be left enough and in as good quality in common for the others”.
For example, someone who does not have the right to appropriate himself the only source of water of a desert, without that a minimal access to the water is insured for anyone.
An open code as defined by the free software’s world consists of an open-source code of computer program, modifiable by its users. The principle of “freedom of code” is fundamentally compatible with the principle of Relativity, because if the Laws are independent of the referential, it means that they are not hidden, nor inaccessible via the experiment wherever we are.
But the money is actually a hidden proprietary code, in the sense of the money is controlled by rules not democratically changeable (essentially the rules of Basel I, II and soon III, which are established in no way through a democratic process), and the operations made through the Banking system concerning the emission of asymmetrical credits are not transparent. The historic crisis of the “Subprime lending” with it’s peak in 2008 is the latest illustration of it.
According to the consequences of the “digital perspective” revealed by Olivier Auber, the choice of a system implies the choice of the code that rules it, and that is not neutral. We have then to question the transparency and the legitimacy of the code.
That implies that the freedom of the code that rules the system (here the money, which is the code of all economic exchanges), is a prior concept to the choice, if not there is simply no choice, then no freedom. According to that criteria defended by the inventor of “free software” Richard Stallman, if you accept to use a system where the code is not free, you reduce your own fundamental freedoms.
The consequence of a monetary system with a hidden code is the emergence of an economy where the value field is an auto-reproductive and unstable topological structure. On the other side the consequence of the usage of a free monetary system is the emergence of an economy where the field of value is a spherical structure in space-time expansion, compatible with the generations renewal.
We would by the way do the difference between the software freedoms as defined by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), which are four, and those linked to the freedoms of a communication or exchange protocol as the money, which cannot be modified individually without cutting oneself out of the community that uses it. So for the free software, the freedoms defined by the FSF are:
Freedom of use
Freedom to access and to read the source code
Freedom to modify the source code
Freedom to copy and distribute
Which are the differences with the four freedoms that have to be associated to a free monetary system:
Freedom of democratic modification
Freedom to access to resources
Freedom to produce values
Freedom to exchange “in the money”
Examples : In 2011, the Euro cannot be considered as a money of a free monetary system because its code (the treaties on the monetary code) are not modified by a democratic process.
We can speak about the Euro as a money depriving of freedoms, or as a private monetary system, at least in the sense of the first freedom, and even more according to the fourth freedom as we shall see in the following.
Another example : gold. We can talk about the gold as a monetary candidate not respecting at least the third economic freedom of economic exchange “in the money”, for the simple reason - that we will develop later - that it is not universally accessible within an economic zone. Such a “money” that forces back to barter where the money is not present, cannot have the characteristic of freedom “to exchange in the money”.
And this is why the RTM makes the difference between a specific value and the money as “measure and medium of universal exchange” inside the monetary union.
It is quite the same role that the speed of light plays in Relativist physics. The light is not a physical object like any other objects. Its speed, data of space/time (a distance divided by a time) is the same in any referential. And it is because observers agree on this point, that they deduce the relativity of the other measurements to establish a relativist theory compatible between them, giving different measurements following different referentials, but having the “same shape”.