Danny: Money is not created by laws. It is created by a free society choosing whether or not to accept this or that as a medium of exchange.

Martin: Money is a record of credit from an exchange. I give you a gallon of milk. Rather than returning something of comparable value, you return documentary evidence that I have parted with this value. I am then entitled presently to something of comparable value elsewhere in the market. You possibly obtained the entitlement similarly, but people obtain these entitlements in many different ways.

In other words, you are making the case that money is whatever the state says it is.

"Please be more specific. Precisely, what coercion have I supported?"

You have supported state coercion to penalize spending that is not directed towards state approved "investments". You have supported state coercion to force children to care for their parents. That was a few months ago. I haven't really read your money posts above critically, but I would be willing to bet that the bottom line on them is a preference for some form of state coercion. Am I wrong?

It looked so good, I thought I'd post it again

I actually think that, depending on where I lived, your government would prevent me from doing all three of those things if it knew about it.

I was very happy with my privately run trash pickup, before the city compelled us all to use theirs.

Is there a law where you live that forbids transportation other than your personal gas-powered automobile, or is your analogy flawed?

Ordinarily, muirgeo, you are stupid. Someime you rise to the level of being merely wrong. Today, you have exceeded your previous best effort; you are spectacularly wrong. Economists describe laws, not opinions. If you think politicians can vote on the valued of pi to make it a rational number, you are sadly muirgeo. Just as 'boycott' used to be a name, your name has become here a noun meaning 'spectacularly wrong, with fireworks'.

Posted by: Russ Nelson

No inconsistency at all in what I wrote. Maybe the word economies could be substituted for economics but the obvious point was that economies depend dramatically on the political systems in which the operate. This is a critical issue in discussing economies and politics but of course the fact is you're simply more interested in a chance to flame then really discuss anything of substance. Vacuousness is the noun that comes to mind.