On a discussion forum,  a poster posited the usual false-opposite question on the subject of who should control monetary policy i.e. a central bank or politicians?

What is the alternative? I’d rather have the central bank able to move interest rates independently than require them to consult every move with politicians. The Fed is not unique. Every established economy has a central bank, and in democratic countries they’re not obliged to consult with politicians.

I responded:

What is the alternative?

We’re not permitted to see one. Fiat currency has value because of State violence by way of legal tender laws. On the surface, it seems confidence is what drives our acceptance of dollars – I don’t dispute that, but people are lobotomized when it comes to the subject of money. Did the State always provide citizens its money? No. Money has a long story of evolution in the market, starting with commodity monies of all sorts, eventually culminating in precious metals as these metals had unique physical properties making them desirable as money…i.e. portability, durability, fungibility, scarcity, etc.

Money is merely a commodity like all other commodities, with the unique property valued in the market as being tradeable for all other commodities.

If I opened “Tax Me’s Money Store” and produced uniform pieces of paper with different inks/designs on them indicating denomination, how would I get the market to accept them? How could I prevent a competitor from doing the same? Answer: I can’t. I’d be laughed at or ignored. People would rightly say, “You’d print up money and give it to yourself or your friends and use it to your benefit, while producing nothing of economic value! You’re a cheat!”.

Now, if I got a bunch of thugs to work for me with the biggest guns in town and threatened others to pay me tribute (via legal tender violence or taxation violence) in my form of money, what would happen? You’d cave in to me or I’ll make your life miserable or worse. If a competitor opened a store, I’d throw him in jail or kill him.

What’s the alternative?

What organization do you trust with a monopoly on money definition and production? Should it be an central bank or politicians?

If you had a monetary printing press in your office, how long would you be able to refrain from using it to your benefit at the expense of others? What about the person who comes after you who seeks office to control that printing press?

If you had a listening device on your desk and could listen in on conversations anywhere with a 0% chance of getting caught, how long would you be able to refrain from using it to your benefit at the expense of others? What about the person who comes after you who seeks control of the office blessed with that listening device?

I wouldn’t be able to myself. Therefore, the only mechanism acceptable to produce our money is the free market, where money is produced by competing firms, no legal tender laws are present, and no taxation is mandated to be paid in one form of money over another.

I never said, “People should be forced to use [insert money form here] as money!”. What I argue is “People should be free to choose what they want to use as money!”. In practice, this would mean a return to commodity forms of money. Perhaps gold/silver/copper with the market determining exchange rates between them.

Interest rates on money would be freely set by the market, not manipulated by a monopoly on violence (the State) via a central bank nor its connected insiders (the banks).

Fiat money mandated by the State does not “float” on the market as commonly shilled by court recognized economists and sycophantic morally confused slobbering mainstream drones. They simply sink at different rates over time.

The alternative is to return to free market money before the State/Banking cartel hijacked it. We are not permitted to learn about that. Where? State connected media? Government provided education? Pfft.

Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.