From: mjones@bk-kgnaix11.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: taxes, theft, police, etc.
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:04:02 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Kingston NY


In article <9209081540.AA02057@skinner.nprdc.navy.mil>, malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.225248.22355@bnlux1.bnl.gov> weiner@bnlls1.nsls.bnl.gov (Gary J. Weiner) writes:
> >In article <89.2AA3B7D7@toadnet.org> Roger.Franz@p0.f16.n8012.z86.Toadnet.org (Roger Franz) writes:
> >And furthermore, without a government, there would be no money. That's
> >right no money. You might get by with gold or some other intrinsic
> >value metal, but its damn inconvenient.
> 
> Look at a dollar bill; do you see _anything_ there that gives it any
> intrinsic value whatsoever? Back when the US ran on a hard-money
> standard, a dollar bill represented a known amount of gold or silver,
> because you could go to the government and exchange your currency for
> gold or silver. Now our money has value because the government says it
> does.

They key word here, of course, is "represented". Even when the currency was
"backed by gold", the dollar bill had the same intrinsic value it does
today. There was more CONFIDENCE, perhaps, because people believed they
could go to the government and get gold for it, but ultimately it was that
belief that gave the currency its value and stability. We have relatively
low inflation today because people believe the government's guarantee of the
money's value, just like always. Money - paper money, not specie - has
ALWAYS had value, in the final analysis, becuase the government says it
does. Maybe they promised you you could get gold for it, but what if the
bank is closed?

> But _anyone_ who produces a tangible product can issue currency based
> on their product; all they have to do is guarantee that their currency
> can be exchanged for a known quantity of their product.

Exactly. That guarantee gets people to trust your currency. That trust is
what gives it value. If no one wants your product, then your currency won't
be worth very much. If I and 100 friends all get together, sculpt 15,000
small statues of Adam Smith, and agree to use them as a medium of exchange,
they have value exactly because we trust each other to keep our promise to
accept them and not suddenly decide we'd like to have gold, or rice, or
dollar bills instead. That's the same situation we're in right now with the
dollar. It has value because people believe it has value and accept it.
Really, that's no different from gold in that sense. What value does gold
have? You can't eat it, or sleep in it (unless you have quite a lot), or
defend yourself with it (at least not very effectively). It has value only
because people want it and because of that, are willing to accept it as a
medium of exchange. 

> >>Not true either. You socialists really like to distort the truth. 
> >
> >Wow, I don't think I've EVER been called a socialist. I should save this
> >post and show it to my friends.
> 
> You believe that the government should extract money from citizens as
> a whole and use it to pay for services that only the government should
> provide; that's a pretty good description of socialism as it is
> practiced in the world today.

Actually, it's also a pretty good description of capitalism as it's practiced
in the world today. It's hardly a good definition of socialism in any
meaningful sense.
  
> >>Ah, the benefits. [government abuses deleted]
> >
> >Yes, the benefits. Do you think you've recieved nothing from the 
> >government? Police protection, Roads and bridges, protection in the 
> >workplace, schools, and the network that we now argue on?
> 
> If a business is run so poorly that, to remain in existence, it has to
> be entirely funded by government subsidies because no one would pay
> _voluntarily_ for such shoddy service, then it should be replaced by
> companies that depend on satisfying their customers to remain in
> business.

Non sequitur. Libertarians, on the net, often seem to claim that government
brings nothing but bad things. In response to a claim that government brings
some good things also, you respond not with a reasonable argument about
efficiency, or perhaps whether government should be doing those things, but
with ideological twaddle about business subsidies. Note please, that the
post you're replying to doesn't mention funding by government subsity *or*
shoddy service.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

Wohl's Riddle:
Q. What is so rare as a day in June?
A. A day in February, which is 6.7% more rare; except in leap year when it is
still 3.3% more rare.
	- R. Wohl