5 ms·

Interesting - a similar argument is that if you removed the ability for governments to arbitrarily print money, and they actually had to tax citizens and explai

Interesting - a similar argument is that if you removed the ability for governments to arbitrarily print money, and they actually had to tax citizens and explain to them what it was being spent on, wars would be way less popular and occur less often. You seem to think the dangerous psychopath is the independently wealthy rich person. They may be a psychopath, but the true danger is the psychopath who also gains government power - that is the real danger, which the US Constitution wisely put limits on. I believe power often corrupts, and I'm way more afraid of the bureaucrat than the aristocrat.

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
Power is power. I'm not really trying to split hairs about what color it is. I'm just saying that we'd need to worry about the commons less (whether that's taxing the rich or putting a misbehaving government in check) if we were a bit more hygenic about how much power we allow to concentrate in the first place.
anothernewdude 4y ago
> if you removed the ability for governments to arbitrarily print money, The money is the governments. You can't remove that power - they're the ones with the power over the money, by definition. If someone else does, they essentially become the government. That money has value because they print it, and enforce controls over it. You're just holding some of it for a while. How you are expressing what you want is meaningless.
- __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
  I agree that it's not phrased well. What are you going to do, revoke the ability to issue money... by fiat? But the goal is a good one. Make the government afraid that if they abuse our trust, we'll turn our backs on their token and find ourselves a less problematic social contract to value.
  - anothernewdude 4y ago
    Anyway, if your concern is quantitive easing, then your real problem should be with banks. Because of how loans work banks are creating 10x the money governments do. Banks are the problem, not governments. And frankly, once you make your own token, you're just a less trustworthy government.

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago

Power is power. I'm not really trying to split hairs about what color it is. I'm just saying that we'd need to worry about the commons less (whether that's taxing the rich or putting a misbehaving government in check) if we were a bit more hygenic about how much power we allow to concentrate in the first place.

anothernewdude 4y ago

> if you removed the ability for governments to arbitrarily print money, The money is the governments. You can't remove that power - they're the ones with the power over the money, by definition. If someone else does, they essentially become the government. That money has value because they print it, and enforce controls over it. You're just holding some of it for a while. How you are expressing what you want is meaningless.

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
I agree that it's not phrased well. What are you going to do, revoke the ability to issue money... by fiat? But the goal is a good one. Make the government afraid that if they abuse our trust, we'll turn our backs on their token and find ourselves a less problematic social contract to value.
- anothernewdude 4y ago
  Anyway, if your concern is quantitive easing, then your real problem should be with banks. Because of how loans work banks are creating 10x the money governments do. Banks are the problem, not governments. And frankly, once you make your own token, you're just a less trustworthy government.