So Mises considered the possibility that competition (free banking) would completely suppress bank notes (fiduciary media).
Also, whether the practice of issuing fiduciary media is fraudulent or not, and should be outlawed or not is a different matter.
Whether or not fractional reserve is legal is moot. We can’t go into every bank and inspect their reserves. What’s illegal is not redeeming people’s cash withdrawals. If you’ve lost your clients’ money, you are going to jail.
Under the current system, not redeeming money is protected by governments. That is what makes fractional reserve systems possible.
Apropos of our discussion:
If you go about half way down the article, begin at the paragraph: "What strikes me is how this accords precisely…
Mr. Rockwell is arguing for free banking. No return to the gold dollar. Instead, a fully laissez-faire system.
Well, Mises on the other hand seems to have favored the gold standard =] . But anyways, I don’t oppose a fully laissez-faire system. I just think that fiduciary media are not going to work (I don’t think outlawing them is even worth the trouble)
ignore this statist.
I so hope that’s a joke.
I don’t think it is. You have gone out of your way to identify yourself as a statist. Reap what you sow.
Oh, I guess I’m going to have to ask for some sort of quotation in which I’ve explicitely identified myself as a statist. As opposed to one who merely does not care about anarchism, minarchism or whatever other form of political organization you favour.
The problem with behaving like a child, is that eventually, everyone treats you like one.
If one is not an anarchist, is one not a statist? Or is it your contention that there can be a ruler or rulers without a “state”?
The problem is, a quotation is still necessary for me to concede your point, so get to it. On the other hand, you can continue making assertions and ignoring your critics, but then I’m not so sure you can claim the high ground with your “maturity”.
No, my contention is that a statist is one who supports the state. Whether they do so on economic or moral grounds is for now irrelevant. Since I don’t think I’ve said that I support the state, I think I’m exempt from your charges.
Well, do you or do you not support the state?
That is the question Giles. No need to send people hunting for quotations, when you have avoided staking out a clear position.
What is your answer? Do you or do you not support the state?
Neither, is the answer to that. I just couldn’t care.
I made no charges. I simply asked a question. I’ll rephrase. If you oppose a system with “no rulers”, does it follow that you support a system with a ruler or rulers? Or are you neutral to either idea?
Ah yes, the coward’s way out. Never again shall you be taken seriously.
Why, because I’m apolitical? That makes a lot of sense. I don’t really understand what your issue is, I don’t concern myself with questions regarding the morality of the state because I believe my time is spent better elsewhere. Namely attempting to understand the economic consequences of the state. If you wish to call me a coward because I don’t concern myself with the same questions as you do, go ahead, but you’re just making yourself look very doctrinaire. On the other hand, I’m quite frank about my lack of interest in the answers to such questions, others here profess their hatred for the state (whatever that means) and do very little towards acting upon such hatred. If I’m coward, they’re hypocrites. And in my book, the latter are far worse than the former.
Look, I’m sure if I were to ask you which of two obscure Portuguese towns you prefer, you’d declare your indifference between them. I doubt you would call yourself a coward for such indifference. Let me be blunt, there are elements of the state that I value, as you’ve said, I think that state provision of certain services is quite conducive to my own self interest. I also think that there are state interventions that work again my own well being. Netted out, I’m not sure which wins. But that doesn’t matter because I don’t make any claims about the legitimacy of the state, I’m talking about nothing more than my own subjective preferences. It’s no different to you appreciating a certain road provided by the state that makes your daily commute to work far easier. You’re certainly not a statist for doing so, you merely recognise that once in a while the state can do things that work in your self interest. At least in the short run.
That’s exactly what it comes down to Jack - excellent questions.
Jack:
Is neutrality in this matter a sensible or sensical option in your opinion?
If not, why not ?
I recall Giles commenting that he valued the state in the sense that it provided society with a good it could somehow not achieve. Though there is confusion as to if that means that Giles thinks that a government should always be ready to establish this service on a constant basis or whither he asserts that people should band together to make a government in order to somehow receive a good they could not get because…they didn’t band together and do what they are doing now [ yes the logic is blinding is it not ]
Anarchist, I don’t think you understood what I said. My point was not that people should band together and make a “government” but that there are other mechanisms by which people can solve the problem of what mainstream economists call public goods. Look, if you wish me to use an example that you might be more comfortable with see Hoppe’s suggestion that the “free rider” problem with regards to the provision of security may be solved by “natural elites” and restrictive covenants. There’s huge amounts of literature that provide empirical evidence and theoretical research on how voluntary institutions can solve various problems related to the concept of “public goods”, if you want I can recommend some, but it’s a bit of a strawman to call me a statist because of this.
On the other hand, yes, you’re correct that I value the state in the sense that it provides various goods at the current time (although, I don’t think I mentioned security). But let me add this, by Austrian methodological precents, namely revealed preference, anybody here who uses state owned roads or other state services values the state too. I’m just more honest about it.