True, there is nothing that "stops" me from using them. That's your completely uncritically thinking brain-fart straw man argument -- that a "barrier to entry" to currency is necessarily an outright prohibition of some kind. That goes to the heart of why you really can't engage in an honest debate. You constrain (and strain) definitions to suit your own premises. Very much like Roy L. You have defined everything, and as narrowly as possible to fit your governing assumptions.
I already have alternate currency, Mr. paper-centric trapped-in-his-own-box guy. Hard specie, gold and silver US minted coins -- not more intrinsically valueless irredeemable paper currencies.
My gold and silver US minted coins were demonetized, and are now both taxed as something "other than money". That is the barrier to entry, no different than an internal TARIFF -- the artificial guarantee that I will be TAXED for simply using such coins as money. But, like the $1,004.95 single lb. of taxed butter example, I am "free" to use those coins, aren't I? And to price my goods in them. At a price.
See, I actually can and do trade in hard specie. All silver US minted "junk" coins, and most every day. And when the tax man sees that my silver coins have "increased in value", I will be taxed on that. No attention will be paid to the loss in value of FRN's, only the relative "increase" in value of the coins. Thus, whatever economic advantage I had (not really an advantage, so much as a protection from an artificial disadvantage) is lost - siphoned away.
And you're right, YOU can't argue with Von Mises:
You're the idiot who reads #1, thinks he has the Holy Grail nutshell of an answer, and calls it a day.Originally Posted by Ludwig Von Mises
You're the idiot who says, "What the US Treasury sees is of no concern to me or anyone else.""It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of right."
Yes, pay no attention the man behind the curtain.
Your befuddled brain has Mises backwards, convoluted, and completely confused, with your notion that money is derived primarily from its use as a taxation medium. That's your lunacy, which you haven't backed up. You have it exactly backwards. That government tail didn't wag the dog. The dog was there first. If the market was using blueberries (or Tulips, or tea), the government would sniff it out and glom onto it afterward.If they decided to use blueberries wouldn't change a thing either - unless, they demand blueberries as payment for taxes - then, eventually, blueberries would become money - not because the government said it was money, but because people needed to pay their taxes would trade in blueberries, and by that marketability, blueberries would become money.
Read the Coinage Act of 1792. The government didn't just "decide" a currency into existence. It based its new dollar on the Spanish milled Dollar that was already widely in circulation, and chosen by the market already - and NOT because anyone was wandering around trying to figure out the best way to pay taxes.