8 ms·

That's not the case. The government could choose to tax in gold, bitcoin, a foreign currency, or whatever. There does not need to be a "government money monop

by javert 7y ago

That's not the case. The government could choose to tax in gold, bitcoin, a foreign currency, or whatever. There does not need to be a "government money monopoly" to have taxation and a government.

tathougies 7y ago
I very clearly worded my statement. I said "including a demand that taxes be paid in a certain currency". I didn't say 'a demand taxes be paid in a currency owned and controlled by the government', I said a currency. This is a very clear statement that already captures my thoughts on all the various media of exchange you mentioned. If a government only accepts taxes in gold, then it is still demonstrating it has a monopoly on currency, because now gold becomes something everyone must own and thus will serve as a commonly accepted means of exchange for all those subject to taxation from the same government. EDIT: For example, Ecuador uses the US Dollar, but don't be fooled to think the Ecuadorian government doesn't have a monopoly on the use of the dollar within Ecuador.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  I don't understand what you're saying. Why couldn't the government accept taxes in e.g. gold as well as USD?
  - tathougies 7y ago
    because the amount of gold the government is willing to accept gives the value to the gold, not the other way around. The gold would still be denominated in some government set standard and thus subject to governmental discernment in how much it's worth.
- javert 7y ago
  So you're actually just saying that the government has to tax to exist, and using the word "monopoly" wrong. I actually don't know of a government that has a money monopoly. That would mean making a government-controlled currency the exclusive legal currency in the country. If you don't agree with that definition of the word "monopoly," that's fine, but I don't want to discuss it. It's a word that has a valid meaning but is most commonly used in a way that is self-contradicting.

by javert 7y ago

That's not the case. The government could choose to tax in gold, bitcoin, a foreign currency, or whatever. There does not need to be a "government money monopoly" to have taxation and a government.

tathougies 7y ago

I very clearly worded my statement. I said "including a demand that taxes be paid in a certain currency". I didn't say 'a demand taxes be paid in a currency owned and controlled by the government', I said a currency. This is a very clear statement that already captures my thoughts on all the various media of exchange you mentioned. If a government only accepts taxes in gold, then it is still demonstrating it has a monopoly on currency, because now gold becomes something everyone must own and thus will serve as a commonly accepted means of exchange for all those subject to taxation from the same government. EDIT: For example, Ecuador uses the US Dollar, but don't be fooled to think the Ecuadorian government doesn't have a monopoly on the use of the dollar within Ecuador.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
I don't understand what you're saying. Why couldn't the government accept taxes in e.g. gold as well as USD?
- tathougies 7y ago
  because the amount of gold the government is willing to accept gives the value to the gold, not the other way around. The gold would still be denominated in some government set standard and thus subject to governmental discernment in how much it's worth.
javert 7y ago
So you're actually just saying that the government has to tax to exist, and using the word "monopoly" wrong. I actually don't know of a government that has a money monopoly. That would mean making a government-controlled currency the exclusive legal currency in the country. If you don't agree with that definition of the word "monopoly," that's fine, but I don't want to discuss it. It's a word that has a valid meaning but is most commonly used in a way that is self-contradicting.