Table of Contents/Table des matières/Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| Cooperating panarchist site: Site panarchiste coopérant: Kooperierende panarchistische Website: | Panarchy.org |
What is needed for us to have real monetary freedom? Do we have to repeal legal tender laws? Abolish the central bank? Introduce a gold standard? Denationalize money à la Hayek? Or perhaps to introduce some other major policy change?
Not really. We just have to use some magic, some monetary magic.
Making the problem disappear
We don’t need to repeal legal tender law, abolish the central bank, introduce a gold standard or denationalize money à la Hayek. We simply need to discover new and rediscover old ways of getting around the problem. Rather than working hard at trying to solve the problem, we can make it disappear. Just like magic.
Let me explain by providing an analogy. Let’s say you want to take your kids to this great park in your city. In the middle of the park there’s a restaurant that only serves poor junk food at absolutely unaffordable prices, and this place has been granted a license by the local government. As expected, your kids soon become hungry. What do you do? You could complain to the owner of the restaurant. You could try to gather up a crowd big enough to ask the owner to improve the food and lower the prices. You could try to petition the government to grant more licenses and hope more restaurants will open. But all of this takes time and your kids are hungry. So you will probably leave the park and simply grab a bite at another place. And the next time you want to visit the park, you will probably bring some food for a picnic. You simply get around the problem by taking your business somewhere else.
I believe we have been trying for too long to do the hard things. We have been working hard to introduce this or that major policy change, mainly through abstract reasoning, while forgetting the simple and practical ways. And the impact of the current monetary monopolies have been blown out of proportion by this excessive focus on it and the very fact that most people don’t see clearly how limited it really is, thus making it even harder for ourselves.
But what exactly is the problem?
If we seek to make something disappear we need to be fully aware of what it is we want to disappear. We need to know the enemy, so to speak.
Legal tender used to simply be the demand of the government to have taxes paid in its preferred money. The government stipulated that X was the unit-of-account and that Y and Z was legal means-of-payment for the taxes, as well as for other financial transactions with the government. The government didn’t claim any monopoly on the unit-of-account or the means-of-payment. Coins from other countries and notes issued by privately held banks circulated freely.
Later on the government claimed that its own issued money had to be accepted by everyone in the country at par. But coins from other countries and notes issued by privately held banks still could circulate freely, even though Gresham’s Law might have had a larger impact under such circumstances.
Further on the government created a central bank with a monopoly on note issuing. People hoarded valuable precious metal coins Gresham’s Law again the mint was closed to the public and it started to produce token coins. This monopoly has ever since been grossly abused and resulted in the highly unstable fiat currencies of today.
Nevertheless, and I apologize for quoting myself,
the essence of the problem with fiat currencies isn’t the legal tender laws. Neither is the fact that the mint isn’t open to the public the essence of the problem. The monopolization of note issuing seems to be the essence of the problem. Break that monopoly and the rest of the problems will vanish. (i) Gresham's law would reverse so that precious metal coins could enter into circulation again, (ii) there would be demand to open the mint to the public or import precious metal coins, (iii) people would consider using alternative unit-of-accounts, like precious metals, and (iv) the legal tender laws could more easily and naturally be circumvented by private contracts.
The significance of the monopoly on note issuing has despite this been grossly overstated. Granted, it’s the main contributor to the problem of fiat currencies. But breaking the monopoly on note issuing isn’t really necessary either in order to use your monetary freedom, only in the case you want to get rid of fiat currencies. These are not identical things.
This is how to use your monetary freedom.
Three steps from monetary freedom
I think there are three simple steps you should try to follow in order to utilize the monetary freedom you actually have and thereby avoid a lot of the problems the government monopoly creates. You can do just one or two of them, and perhaps do so today already, but you should at least consider doing all three. Here they are:
1. Selecting unit-of-account for transactions
When preparing a general offer to potential clients you can select the unit-of-account freely. There is no law stipulating that you have to use the unit-of-account preferred by the government, i.e. normally the national currency. Thus you don’t have to use US$ if you live in the US or RMB if you live in China. You could use whatever unit-of-account you find proper.
You should of course consider what the opposite party of the transaction might think about your selected unit-of-account. And if it’s a contract between that you need to negotiate, this is even more obvious.
There have been as many unit-of-accounts throughout history as there are pebbles on my beach, so don’t let your imagination stop you. I know people that work with various ‘Local Exchange Trading Systems’ that use everything from abstract measures of time to a dozen of eggs. "[T]he design of good money leads inevitably to many moneys", as Michael Linton wisely put it. I know a medical doctor that quotes his services in ounces of gold, and for very good reasons.
The important thing is that you can and should select a unit-of-account freely, disregarding the currency monopoly and focus on what your trade needs.
2. Selecting unit-of-account for accounting
We don’t perform accounting in order to satisfy the tax man. Accounting is far more important than that. Income-and-outlay and profit-and-loss calculations are fundamental tools for directing the actions of any person, privately or in business. And there cannot be any advanced society at all without proper accounting.
Because of the demands of the tax man, you need to perform accounting using the unit-of-account preferred by the government, i.e. once again normally the national currency. But this need not stop you from doing accounting using other unit-of-accounts as well. This is no stranger than keeping the accounts of a company based in several countries and that hence need to keep the books in unit-of-accounts preferred by several governments, i.e. several national currencies.
Naturally, you could keep your books in the national currency and the unit-of-account you have chosen for quoting prices in your business. If you are working with several alternative unit-of-accounts in your business, I believe you should try to keep it to one alternative unit-of-accounts for accounting purposes. Hence, you might need exchange rates between these various unit-of-accounts, but that’s generally no problem.
Moreover, you can freely choose to keep your book using sound accounting principles, instead of the mish-mash of completely unsound accounting principles that the tax man normally requires for filing taxes.
Once again, I know a medical doctor that quotes his services in ounces of gold and he keeps his books in gold ounces and also at least two national currencies since he is doing business in two countries. And there are several accounting freeware programs (example) that can handle multiple currencies, including gold or any other unit-of-account of your choice.
3. Selecting means-of-payment
Selecting a means-of-payment could be a pretty simple thing. Even fiat currencies suffice as long as there are proper exchange rates with the unit-of-account in question.
There is a major problem with fiat currencies that it is important to be aware of. Settling a debt in fiat currencies doesn’t extinguish the debt, since a fiat currency itself is debt on the balance sheet of the central bank at hand. Using fiat currencies insures that debt is perpetuated, and this is at the core of most of the economic problems of today, particularly in the West.
One way for the individual to get around this is through various systems of clearing. There are various clearing, barter and trading systems around that handle this in a smart way (as mentioned above). Although the purchase is registered as a short-term debt, it is very soon extinguished by a corresponding claim by other players inside the system. It works much like any accounts payable, i.e. a short-term debt, that is extinguished as soon as the bill is paid. There is debt, but it is self-extinguishing and not perpetual as in the case with fiat.
There are many great and ambitious people that have created businesses of such clearing and many others that operate on a not-for-profit basis. Unfortunately, there are few systems that are very widespread beyond the local trade or have that ambition, so there is still much work to do in this area for entrepreneurs. But with modern means of communication, this has the potential to become more widely used; at least I’d like to think so.
Monetary freedom in our time
When filing for taxes, we have to use the government monopolized unit-of-account and means-of-payment. But otherwise, we can use any unit-of-account we want for transactions and accounting and use any means-of-payment we want, or even better, rely on clearing.
So instead of trying to change the system, you should start taking the liberties you actually have and help develop them. You will gain, everyone will gain.
Simply quote your services in the unit-of-account of your choice. Simply do the accounting in the unit-of-account of your choice. Simply rely on mutual clearing as far as possible or else use the most convenient means-of-payment. The monetary monopoly will simply disappear, just like magic. Monetary magic.
September 13, 2010
Richard C.B. Johnsson [send him mail] holds a Ph.D. in economics and is of Swedish origin. He works as a financial advisor in one of Asia's great capitals, managing offshore investments for clients from all over Southeast Asia.
The above was first published on LewRockwell.com and is reproduced here with permission.My main purpose is this. I want to suggest how most of us can get closer to our heart's political and social desire. The exceptions are those immoral persons who insist on lording it over other people against their wills, i.e., the authoritarians of any stripe.
I present an imaginary scenario. It is not meant to be a detailed photograph of a new reality. It is to suggest the concept to you as a possible new reality. I am following in the footsteps of Paul Emile de Puydt.
Suppose that local government remains as it is. Suppose that at the beginning of the year, you sign up for your preferred national government. You enroll yourself for one year. Next year you may make a different choice.
To keep matters simple, suppose that you have three choices: Republican (Red), Democrat (Blue), and Libertarian (Coral). But in the back of your minds, understand that there can be more choices. There can be Green, Red Lite, Blue Lite, Yellow, and so on.
If you choose Red, you agree to abide by Red's national government. If you choose Blue or Coral, you agree to abide by their national governments, respectively. You may choose Red and your neighbor may choose Coral. Each of you decides to abide by your own selected national governments.
The meaning of national here is not that there is one nation, one society, and one national government. It means only that there is a government whose members live in many localities. Hereafter I'll drop the term national and just refer to government. The Reds, Blues, and Corals live all over the place in crazy-quilt patterns. You may choose Coral and your neighbor may choose Blue. That's the same kind of thing one finds if one maps out the religions and churches that people sign onto.
I won't try to mimic perfectly the government preferences of existing Reds, Blues, and Corals. I will merely suggest some of their preferred policies in order to show how this system can work. Yes, there will be many details and questions that any thoughtful person can raise. But I am not trying to answer these in advance.
By consulting Republican platforms, Republican votes and the actions of Republican administrations, we build up an idea of the Red government. I suggest to you that those who sign on to Red government for themselves can have most of it for themselves without forcing those who sign on for Blue government into Red government. The same goes for the Blues (and the Corals). They can get most of what they want without forcing others into their government.
Consider health care. The Reds don't want government-run health care. They want to maintain the existing system but with reforms. The Blues want basic security in health care for everyone. Each of you who wishes these two systems can have it without making the other belong to your system. This is a crucial point. Nothing at all prevents a Red adherent from subscribing and paying for and being regulated by the Red system's rules, while at the same time a Blue subscribes to his system and lives with it. There can be Red Medicare (or whatever) and Blue Medicare, just as there are different insurance companies and hospitals and medical plans. The Blues don't have to force the Reds into their system in order to get what they want, anymore than they must force those who want to patronize rock concerts into seeing the operas that they prefer. The Corals, by the way, don't want government involved in health care, and their government won't require any funds from them for that purpose.
Why should anyone be fighting with his neighbor over his neighbor's choice of health care system when this alternative is feasible? At present, no one has a choice of national government. The government claims the right to regulate health care. Therefore, everyone fights and tries to get his own way. Everyone tries to make everyone else pay for what he gets. Presented with a choice of government, the fighting can cease. Each person can get what he wants.
Those who, given a choice, still insist on making everyone kowtow to his system under one government are, in my opinion, advocating an evil thing. They do not think it's evil, however. They think it's good to make everyone do the same thing because the government tells them to. Their reasoning usually comes down to some notion that "society" would fall apart unless everyone is made to obey. They have some notion of a collective or a unitary society or a single nation or one people, and they place this notion above that of any individual person. To my way of thinking, these ideas are all wrong.
It's not a good thing for the government to tell everyone what to do. They abuse the power. They don't know what's right for everyone. They prevent people from bettering themselves. Society won't fall apart. In fact, the notion of one society is flawed. This notion of one "society" is deeply ingrained among persons of most all political persuasions. Even the Corals frequently use it without even realizing it. I could pile up an enormous list of quotations that use this notion of society. I've no doubt used it myself. It's a dangerous idea because all people supposedly in one society are not united and uniform in their social and political preferences. In that sense, society is a mythical construction. It serves to support the idea of a single government for that single society. That's what makes it so insidiously dangerous. Finally, the idea that the collective is above the individual person is wrong too. The collective invariably comes right back to an elite few who speak for the group, and that's nothing more than government again with all its attendant ills.
The fact of the matter is that any national government that purports to speak and act for a unitary society is actually a small group of persons who claim to be deputed to act on behalf of another group of unidentifiable persons. Any claim of government to act on behalf of everyone cannot be verified by any open and freely-made agreements. I know of no government that is annually endorsed and chosen freely by those who want to have it. All governments impose on those persons under their rule. None are instruments that arise from consent. They all lack the legitimacy of open consent by persons who voluntarily make known their choices and agree to stick by them.
I will not belabor the point that government by choice is possible by going through each and every one of the issues that divide people politically and socially. I will merely mention some more of the issues that do not require a monolithic (monopoly) national government: voting rights, economy and job creation, energy independence, open government, civil rights, abortion, retirement security, education, fair elections, science and technology, drugs, and welfare. For example, the Reds might sign on to a government that, among them, enforces no abortions, while the Blues and Corals countenance abortions. The Reds and Blues may enforce various economic rules, taxes, and subsidies among their own but not other supporters in order to achieve their versions of economic health and job creation. The Corals may engage in laissez-faire. The Blues may foster teachers' unions and required education from age 3 onwards, while the Reds may foster curricula that they favor.
Again, the crucial point here is that there are no reasons why each group cannot choose what it prefers in these areas, and these are the areas that the major political parties list on their web sites and discuss in their platforms.
Defense is somewhat more difficult because what each government does may affect persons choosing a different government. Nothing prevents the Reds (or Blues) from raising armed forces from among themselves and stationing these forces in foreign lands and entering foreign conflicts. If war starts, their enemies might attack everyone, even those who didn't subscribe to that government. What's likely to happen, however, is that since the Reds or any war-making government have to pay for their wars by collecting money and soldiers from those who voluntarily subscribe to that government and that policy, they will find their capacity to gather resources and manpower for these wars to be far, far lower than under the present system of monopoly government. When people have a choice about fighting and paying for fighting because they must bear the costs, the deaths, and the injuries, they are likely to make a far different choice than when a government forcibly extracts their treasure and blood from them, while stirring them up with propaganda and concocting international incidents that lead to war.
Warfare will be a case of the "good" driving out the "bad" from the market, at least to a greater extent than we get under the present system.
Now I ask you, do you really want to be a Republican or a Democrat? Will you willingly and voluntarily pay for the kinds of government they now bring? Will you willingly submit your persons and property to their rules and regulations, which you do when you choose a government? Or will you seek out other choices in government?
I predict that given a choice, vast numbers of persons will not choose anything remotely resembling the kind of government we have today. That discrepancy between what we have and what we might have is a measure of the unhappiness that existing government causes.
Paul Emile de Puydt recommended choice in government in 1860. This was on the eve of the world going in exactly the opposite direction. Whatever progress has been made since then has been due to liberty in free markets, not to the monopoly governments that grew and grew and grew in size, strength, and power, until they brought two world wars upon mankind along with genocides, nuclear weapons, unending warfare, and vast economic instabilities. The time has come to reverse directions, to stop thinking in terms of single societies ruled by single governments that lack legitimate consent. The time has come to start thinking in terms of choice in government.
November 25, 2010
Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. He is the author of the free e-book Essays on American Empire.
The above was first published on LewRockwell.com and is reproduced here with permission. Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com.
Many more great articles (334 to date!) by Prof. Rozeff are here on LewRockwell.com. In particular, do not miss (especially these days!) the arch-important one on "The Walking Dead": Zombie Keynesianism, his second-latest one.
Ein paar Gedanken zur Toleranz
Link, as per today [added March 5, 2008]: