<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/10/2014 03:28 AM, Anders Sandberg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:2236227376-14650@secure.ericade.net"
type="cite">
<style type="text/css"><!--
.mcnt {word-wrap:break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:space;-webkit-line-break:after-white-space;}
--></style>
<div><span data-mailaddress="tara@taramayastales.com"
data-contactname="Tara Maya" class="clickable"><span
title="tara@taramayastales.com">Tara Maya</span><span
class="detail"> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tara@taramayastales.com"><tara@taramayastales.com></a></span></span>
, 9/6/2014 11:25 PM:<br>
<blockquote class="mcnt mori" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:2px blue solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="mcnt">
<div>
<div>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?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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'.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2236227376-14650@secure.ericade.net"
type="cite">
<div>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. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Private concerns are incapable of creating accurate time keeping??<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2236227376-14650@secure.ericade.net"
type="cite">
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
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). <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
We can't establish identity without a monopoly supplying papers or
checking biometrics or maintaining a key-ring or equivalent??<br>
<br>
- samantha<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>