3 ms·

I think you are the one who is ahistorical. Even in the most failed of government systems, anarchist societies and black markets: people engange in economic act

I think you are the one who is ahistorical. Even in the most failed of government systems, anarchist societies and black markets: people engange in economic activity ("earn money"). You don't even have to look at history, you can look around the world today with failed states and black markets. Wherever there are people there is economic activity ("earn money"). If there is no state, groups and individuals take upon themselves those roles which the state has monopoly in most places: protection of private property and dispute resolution. These two things are the most vital ingredients for economic activity. > After all the ideas of money and the ideas of government are so deeply intertwined in their evolution that people haven't managed to separate them You're just making an unfounded assertion. Many people separate economy and state, for good reason. Money have existed and exist today (cryptocurrencies for one example) irrespective of government.

ska 10y ago
I think you missed the point I was trying to make, so I will try again. [edit: I had a longer response but realize it opened up a bunch of side issues that weren't helpful] The economy and the system of government it operates in (yes, including black/grey markets) are fundamentally intertwined in ways that make it hard to reason about separately. What I'm objecting to are statements that boil down to: "If we all paid X less tax I would have X more dollars which we could do as we please with". In general this is hopelessly naive. For what it is worth, both your examples of failed states and cryptocurrrencies (which do not, yet?, operate as currencies) support exactly what I am talking about, not the converse. The attempt to divide an conquer in thinking about economies and government is useful but so far not completely successful. When it leads to people making silly inferences, it is problematic. So yes people talk about them as if they were separate, because it is easier. But that is not the same as having separated them.

ska 10y ago

I think you missed the point I was trying to make, so I will try again. [edit: I had a longer response but realize it opened up a bunch of side issues that weren't helpful] The economy and the system of government it operates in (yes, including black/grey markets) are fundamentally intertwined in ways that make it hard to reason about separately. What I'm objecting to are statements that boil down to: "If we all paid X less tax I would have X more dollars which we could do as we please with". In general this is hopelessly naive. For what it is worth, both your examples of failed states and cryptocurrrencies (which do not, yet?, operate as currencies) support exactly what I am talking about, not the converse. The attempt to divide an conquer in thinking about economies and government is useful but so far not completely successful. When it leads to people making silly inferences, it is problematic. So yes people talk about them as if they were separate, because it is easier. But that is not the same as having separated them.