County Currency As Strategic Liberty

[jabowery]

Passing the buck as it were, or the legal authority to enact a fiat currency, would be no better at the County level than the Federal level, especially if every County did this.

The problem with political economy is the lack of scientific discipline and that is overcome by allowing variation: control groups.

Without control groups the sophomoric bromide "Correlation doesn't imply causation." is the "go to" response of all sophists and renders the task of discovery impossibly complicated by the advocacy of political ideologues.

The likelihood of all counties behaving the same with regard to issuance of county currency is vastly less likely, and the damage less far reaching, than at the State level. I know I don't have to convince you that the same applies in the relative dangers of State vs Federal levels.

As I said: All it takes is for one State to unburden its Counties with respect to county currency transactions, and political economics -- that is the science of political economy -- will be revolutionized.

[WilliamC]

The problem with political economy is the lack of scientific discipline and that is overcome by allowing variation: control groups.

Without control groups the sophomoric bromide "Correlation doesn't imply causation." is the "go to" response of all sophists and renders the task of discovery impossibly complicated by the advocacy of political ideologues.

The likelihood of all counties behaving the same with regard to issuance of county currency is vastly less likely, and the damage less far reaching, than at the State level. I know I don't have to convince you that the same applies in the relative dangers of State vs Federal levels.

As I said: All it takes is for one State to unburden its Counties with respect to county currency transactions, and political economics -- that is the science of political economy -- will be revolutionized.

Thus the huge disinformation campaign put forth to convince people that the USA is a democracy when in fact it is a republic.

Yep.

[jabowery]

Thus the huge disinformation campaign put forth to convince people that the USA is a democracy when in fact it is a republic.

Yep.

You got it. The very first republics established by the Greeks were, in fact, seen as part of the "science" of government for exactly this reason.

[Travlyr]

This is only true if the Counties are allowed to print currency not backed by some commodity, such as the land they control. Yes this leads to Georgist ideas but again so long as we are talking about Counties and (to a lessor extent States) then a large amount of experimentation should be tolerated and even encouraged.

People will vote with their feet, and those Counties (and States to a lessor extent) that somehow manage to have the 'best' taxation system will attract more people, while those that have 'worse' tax systems will lose people.

Obviously there is just as much possibility of corruption at the State and County level of government as at the Federal level, but to me a great start would be empowering the State governments at the expense of the Federal government as a way to reducing the total amount of government.

Ultimately, the 'people' will be better able to get the kind of taxation and services 'they' desire, so long as the costs are not nationalized or globalized or redistributed.

Irredeemable currencies are unacceptable if forced upon the people by government decree. For pure freedom to be achieved complete separation of money and government is required. The only tasks government should have concerning money are what they will accept in payment of taxes and fixing the standard of weights and measures. That's it. Having the privileges of printing currency and enforcing law creates a powerful entity that can only grow over time. Separate them completely.

[jabowery]

Irredeemable currencies are unacceptable if forced upon the people by government decree. For pure freedom to be achieved complete separation of money and government is required. The only tasks government should have concerning money are what they will accept in payment of taxes and fixing the standard of weights and measures. That's it. Having the privileges of printing currency and enforcing law creates a powerful entity that can only grow over time. Separate them completely.

You do realize that some people disagree with your opinion, do you not? Do you believe that those who disagree with you should be prevented from forming their own local economies that put their erroneous beliefs to the test, even if they are a small minority of the total population? If that is your belief then what distinguishes you from a theocrat?

Come now:

Wouldn't you agree that the most powerful argument you can make in favor of your strongly held hypothesis is a controlled experiment in which fully-informed, voluntary groups are able to form local economies that vary primarily in the basis of their currency?

[Travlyr]

You do realize that people disagree with your opinion, do you not?

Yes, I do realize that and disagreements are good for discussion. It is, however, easy to see how anything less than 100% redeemable currency is dishonest. Dishonesty is what government does best.

Do you believe that those who disagree with you should be prevented from forming their own local economies that put their erroneous beliefs to the test? If that is your belief then what distinguishes you from a theocrat?

It is fine with me if people live in tyranny as long as I have the option to live free.

Come now:

Wouldn't you agree that the most powerful argument you can make in favor of your strongly held hypothesis is a controlled experiment in which fully-informed, voluntary groups are able to form local economies that vary primarily in the basis of their currency?

No, the most powerful argument is to use reason and logic to dictate that an honest society is more peaceful, free, and individually prosperous than a society controlled by dishonest elite.

[heavenlyboy34]

Thus the huge disinformation campaign put forth to convince people that the USA is a democracy when in fact it is a republic.

Yep.

I would argue that is long gone in practice. While the trappings of republicanism remain for illusion, in practice it's been hollowed out and turned into a "social democracy". So many things are directly elected on now-from senators to voter initiatives-the word "republic" doesn't seem correct anymore. JMHO.

[jabowery]

...the most powerful argument is to use reason and logic to dictate that an honest society is more peaceful, free, and individually prosperous than a society controlled by dishonest elite.

So you disagree with the cardinal rule of science, which is that theory is subordinate to experiment.

You do realize that this was the fundamental conflict between enlightenment philosophers and the Catholic theocracy, do you not?

[Travlyr]

So you disagree with the cardinal rule of science, which is that theory is subordinate to experiment.

That experiment has already been proven as a failure. Do you really need another experiment to prove that giving the elite in charge the power of theft is less liberating to the people being controlled than being honest with each other and letting them control themselves?

You do realize that this was the fundamental conflict between enlightenment philosophers and the Catholic theocracy, do you not?

I did not know that. Thanks, learn something new everyday ... that's what I always say.

[jabowery]

That experiment has already been proven as a failure.

Supporters of fiat currency claim that the experiment of the gold standard has already been tried and was proven a failure.

Do you really need another experiment to prove that giving the elite in charge the power of theft is less liberating to the people being controlled than being honest with each other and letting them control themselves?

I will depersonalize your use of "you" as the editorial or generic "you" as though you had said "one" and proceed:

Every tyranny in history has proclaimed its theory to have been proven by history and that therefore, its subjects don't "need" the freedom that would allow additional experimentation: The most prominent example being Marxists.

Your continued oppositional behavior here is making it increasingly difficult to interpret it as anything except an attempt to prevent voluntary experimentation in the social sciences.

Either you agree with such voluntary experimentation or you are a supporter of tyranny.

Which are you?