[ExI] Must money be a state monopoly?

[Samantha Atkins]

On 06/10/2014 03:28 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Tara Maya<tara at taramayastales.com> , 9/6/2014 11:25 PM:
>
>     I'm aware of the libertarian roots of Bitcoin and other digital
>     currencies, which some individuals hope (and some states fear) can
>     become true currencies not printed and controlled by a state. I
>     wonder if why it is that states do monopolize currencies (or try
>     to) and what the dangers would be if states simply stopped doing
>     this. Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> Coming from a libertarian/Nozickian minarchist angle, it seems that
> the only legitimate job of the state is protecting the rights and
> freedoms of the citizens. Usually that is seen as violence monopoly,
> but it might extend to protection from epidemics too (protection from
> wild animals too small to see!) However, obviously there are plenty of
> other functions that are nice to have, it is just that it is not clear
> the state (the violence monopoly) should be the one running them. 

If you come from a more Rothbardian perspective then there is no reason
for that monopoly.  There is nothing that makes a forced monopoly on any
functions of a modern society inherently necessary by this line of
thinking. 

The people can protect themselves from epidemics.  Forced monopolies
generally are inefficient due to enforced lack of competition.  If the
monopoly may also charge whatever prices (taxation supplied) that it
wishes and throw you in prison if you don't care for its particular
goods and services or wish to offer an alternative then it is ripe for
corruption.   Unlike a business it can change whatever it will and
arrest or kill any competitors or anyone that refuses its 'service'.

> Charles Stross had a character make the point (in Glasshouse) that the
> legitimate role of the state is violence monopoly, timekeeping and
> identity management. Timekeeping matters since the sequencing of
> events is paramount for many functions, including the crypto that may
> underlie money and identity.

Private concerns are incapable of creating accurate time keeping??

>
>
>
> Identity is not just important for being able to make contracts (the
> foundation for much minarchist/anarchocapitalist society) but also for
> effective law enforcement (if it is not possible to tell who did what,
> at best crude deterrence and heavy locks are the solution).

We can't establish identity without a monopoly supplying papers or
checking biometrics or maintaining a key-ring or equivalent??

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140610/3b7757fd/attachment.html>