4 ms·

I think most people in wealthy countries do not feel forced to use their domestic currency - a strong claim otherwise would need some sort of good survey data t

I think most people in wealthy countries do not feel forced to use their domestic currency - a strong claim otherwise would need some sort of good survey data to back it up. (And in fact where I live I am free to also buy crypto, no problem, still don't feel forced to use domestic currency).

nathias 5y ago
You have to pay taxes in the county's fiat, right? Thats what is meant by being forced to use it because if you don't you go to prison and if you resist that you get killed.
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  I honestly don't think that many people have that view versus taking the use of a common currency as one part of the social compact.
  - nathias 5y ago
    if it were a social contract it would be under duress, but that concept was antequated 200 years ago ...
    - RandomLensman 5y ago
      Again, your feeling of duress might not extend to the majority of citizens and not all societies share the view that social compacts are antiquated
      - leppr 5y ago
        Social contracts don't encompass country-level laws (at least since passports appeared and freedom of movement vanished). A contract implies you have a choice: to abide by the rules and participate, or leave. Citizens of most countries don't have this realistic choice, as most of the world is legally closed to immigration. And to come back to the case of currency, the exclusive use of a single government-sanctioned currency is a recent phenomenon, not some deeply ingrained tradition. Local communities, governments and businesses frequently issued their own, and long distance trades were settled in commodities.
        RandomLensman 5y ago
        Social contracts DO encompass country level laws, at least in some countries people on average think so. Government created currencies with broad uptake are very old, not sure where that idea comes from that it is something new. Ancient Rome didn't just settle in commodities across the republic and empire. Early coinage was a major contributor to the creation of commerce and it was often tied to government/rulers. Those coins might not have been totally exclusive but nevertheless kind of a lingua franca version of currency precisely because they had enforcement behind them (social as well as governmental). Anyone can hold different views on what societies and governments should or should not do, mandate, etc. - but until you get the votes (or power) to enact your views it will be tough going if you want a different society.
      - nathias 5y ago
        Social contract is a philosophical theory of legitimacy of state power, it isn't true because its based on 16century contract law that nobody is using any more and because it has other philosophically untennable problems. What citizens think about philosophical concepts is completely irrelevant.

nathias 5y ago

You have to pay taxes in the county's fiat, right? Thats what is meant by being forced to use it because if you don't you go to prison and if you resist that you get killed.

RandomLensman 5y ago
I honestly don't think that many people have that view versus taking the use of a common currency as one part of the social compact.
- nathias 5y ago
  if it were a social contract it would be under duress, but that concept was antequated 200 years ago ...
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    Again, your feeling of duress might not extend to the majority of citizens and not all societies share the view that social compacts are antiquated
    - leppr 5y ago
      Social contracts don't encompass country-level laws (at least since passports appeared and freedom of movement vanished). A contract implies you have a choice: to abide by the rules and participate, or leave. Citizens of most countries don't have this realistic choice, as most of the world is legally closed to immigration. And to come back to the case of currency, the exclusive use of a single government-sanctioned currency is a recent phenomenon, not some deeply ingrained tradition. Local communities, governments and businesses frequently issued their own, and long distance trades were settled in commodities.
      - RandomLensman 5y ago
        Social contracts DO encompass country level laws, at least in some countries people on average think so. Government created currencies with broad uptake are very old, not sure where that idea comes from that it is something new. Ancient Rome didn't just settle in commodities across the republic and empire. Early coinage was a major contributor to the creation of commerce and it was often tied to government/rulers. Those coins might not have been totally exclusive but nevertheless kind of a lingua franca version of currency precisely because they had enforcement behind them (social as well as governmental). Anyone can hold different views on what societies and governments should or should not do, mandate, etc. - but until you get the votes (or power) to enact your views it will be tough going if you want a different society.
    - nathias 5y ago
      Social contract is a philosophical theory of legitimacy of state power, it isn't true because its based on 16century contract law that nobody is using any more and because it has other philosophically untennable problems. What citizens think about philosophical concepts is completely irrelevant.