> I sure hope you don’t need the army, police, schools, fire, water, roads, air and so on. Most adults came to realize at some point that some things need to be provided as a group, and they’re not free. For those everyone has to pony up.
I'd be willing to pay for some of those. Lots of people have an inability to separate 'goods and services required for society' and 'government.'
Society can have all of those things, there need not be a government and there need not be taxes.
> paying taxes is social contact
This is just an empty phrase used as propaganda. There's no such thing as a 'social contract.' Taxes are taken under threat of physical harm and death, always have been.
> To keep it stable I’d make more dollars
This has the presumption that you, or someone should be in charge of what money is worth. That should not be a function of the government.
> This is just an empty phrase used as propaganda. There's no such thing as a 'social contract.' Taxes are taken under threat of physical harm and death, always have been.
Tell that to the judge haha
> Society can have all of those things, there need not be a government and there need not be taxes.
Yeah no, not really.
> This has the presumption that you, or someone should be in charge of what money is worth. That should not be a function of the government.
You’ve again completely ignored my point which is that your share of the value of the economy if the dollars in the system remain constant goes up by inaction. Maintaining a constant Value of the dollar as you yourself suggested requires active management. Once you agree on that we’re just chatting degrees.
> Maintaining a constant Value of the dollar as you yourself suggested requires active management
I don't think that it requires any management. If the value of a currency increases, then the ratio of currency to goods decreases. If a currency became so valuable that people can't trade with it, they'd trade with something else.
You argued for a constant value of a single dollar and then told me what would happen if the value of the currency increases, which is the opposite of what you were telling me before. If it does increase then it leads to massively disproportionate accumulation of wealth for existing holders, which you cannot justify.
> This has the presumption that you, or someone should be in charge of what money is worth. That should not be a function of the government.
That's (a) very much your opinion stated as self-evident and (b) not currently the job of the government, it's the job of an independent private central bank specifically designed to separate monetary policy from fiscal policy and the whims of the elected officials.
The Federal Reserve is federal in the same way that Federal Express is: it's not. Doesn't this line up with the libertarian ethos?
> The Federal Reserve is federal in the same way that Federal Express is: it's not
It's analogous to hiring a contractor. The government wants a program, it simply outsourced the operation to another entity.
Here's what I actually said:
> The unit of exchange (money/currency) should remain relatively constant. That's the point. Maybe it will go up some, maybe it will go down some, but having it manipulated for the profit of large banks is theft.
It should remain relatively constant. That's the entire point of a unit of exchange. There might be periods where the relative demand for the currency outstrips the supply, and if it becomes such a dramatic situation as your presented in your contrived example, then it would cease to be useful as a currency, and something else would/should become the currency.
> (b) not currently the job of the government
Congress has the power to coin and regulate value, per the US constitution. I'm not sure how we ended up talking about the US specifically here, I'm referring to governments generally.
> It's analogous to hiring a contractor. The government wants a program, it simply outsourced the operation to another entity.
No, it isn't, explicitly so. The reason the Fed operates at arms-length is explicitly to avoid having the government set monetary policy. This degree of stability allows businesses to plan and reduces their currency risk. Otherwise you face D vs. R every 4-8 years totally reversing monetary policy.
> It should remain relatively constant. That's the entire point of a unit of exchange. There might be periods where the relative demand for the currency outstrips the supply, and if it becomes such a dramatic situation as your presented in your contrived example, then it would cease to be useful as a currency, and something else would/should become the currency.
Yes, and my whole point is to avoid a large dramatic change you apply small amounts of pressure over time. This is called managing the money supply. And once you agree that this kind of adjustment achieves your objective of "relatively" stable currency (it does), then we can talk degrees, but we're now having a very different conversation.
> Congress has the power to coin and regulate value, per the US constitution. I'm not sure how we ended up talking about the US specifically here, I'm referring to governments generally.
Government handles the fiscal policy, federal reserve handles monetary policy. They're explicitly separated. This is true in many developed countries in the world operating under a central banking model, including Canada (Bank of Canada), and all of Europe (ECB) and England (Bank of England -- privately owned from 1694 to 1946).
> Government handles the fiscal policy, federal reserve handles monetary policy.
This is entirely semantics.
> And once you agree that this kind of adjustment achieves your objective of "relatively" stable currency
I can prove to you that it doesn't result in a stable currency. See the purchasing power of the US dollar over the last 100 years.
> This is called managing the money supply
That's what you call it. I call it theft. If an individual does not have the power to create money, then neither should a group of individuals, regardless of what color robes they're wearing.
> Otherwise you face D vs. R every 4-8 years totally reversing monetary policy
I don't think there's any risk there. They're the same party, both are spend-spend-spend.
I'd be willing to pay for some of those. Lots of people have an inability to separate 'goods and services required for society' and 'government.'
Society can have all of those things, there need not be a government and there need not be taxes.
> paying taxes is social contact
This is just an empty phrase used as propaganda. There's no such thing as a 'social contract.' Taxes are taken under threat of physical harm and death, always have been.
> To keep it stable I’d make more dollars
This has the presumption that you, or someone should be in charge of what money is worth. That should not be a function of the government.