RE: Knowledge of History + Economics = Disbelief in Government

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Knowledge of History + Economics = Disbelief in Government

in dmania •  7 years ago 

A ruler is not necessary. What takes place is the greatest good/service provider chooses to accept a certain denomination.

This can include governments, but it isn't exclusive to governments, as popular merchants would choose to sell goods based on some monetary metric. ex. Pearls. Gold dust/nuggets. Salt. Etc.

The money form also had subjective value use, so that is why it arose naturally to begin with.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Never said a ruler was necessary. I'm saying that's the only way it has been done until now.

Again, money cannot be a real asset. There is no evidence of this happening in history. It has been be financial in nature--that is, by definition it creates an asset and a liability at the same. When a ruler demands a tax, it creates an objective value, which is it protects you from the ruler's tax-collecting thugs.