Charles,
> No, Udhay is using it in the sense of the original post (and quoted
> from it.) I am using it in a different sense. :)
Ok.
It was ambiguous in Eugen's post which sense
of the word was intended, but from yours,
as quoted by Udhay, it was.
> >> >> > I don't have to use Hungarian Forints, no matter what Hungary
> >> >> > says.
>
> > ? Clearly, I am only as free to not use Forints
> > ? as I am free to not do business with Hungary.
>
> Correct. Assume for the moment that you do not "believe in forints" in
> the sense Udhay is using. You believe they are fictitious, with no
> real value. So you won't (voluntarily) do business in them or with
> them. Hungary on the other hand does believe in them and will only do
> business using them. So you are exactly correct. You are only as free
> not to use forints as you are free to not do business with Hungary.
> Which, as far as I can tell, is completely. No one is compelling you
> to do business with Hungary.
You have granted that there could be some country X,
using some currency Y, that compels me to do business
with them.
That is enough.
> > ? Hence, I might be compelled to use Forints against my will
> > ? as surely as a person might be raped.
>
> Even if forints were a completely consensual currency, you could be
> forced to use them. You can be forced to use BitCoins, or barter, in
> exactly the same way. Your argument does not address the consensuality
> (in either sense) of the currency.
>
> If I force you to use GNU at gunpoint does that make GNU un-free? No.
> It makes me a thug.
Well that, and it also makes my use of
GNU in that case non-consensual.
All I'm pointing out is that the use of a particular
currency need not be consensual. It may be coerced.
I'm concerned that this discussion is little more
than a Clang Bird now, and that soon it will fly
up its own backside.
> Are you claiming no one would use USD, Forints, or
> BitCoins if they weren't forced to?
No.
I am saying that some people some of the time
might not wish to use these currencies.
Nothing I've said would indicate that I believed
that no people would ever wish to use them.
The question seems like it's designed to set
up a strawman and knock it down. That's an
utterly pointless exercise.
> That's prima-facie untrue
> given the popularity of the USD in transactions that not only don't involve
> the US Government, but are voluntary consensual transactions between
> freely consenting individuals with a choice of currencies or barter.
Of course.
I have to say, I was hoping for a bit more of an
in-depth conversation about currency, barter,
systems-level analysis, Petri nets, seigniorage,
arbitrage, webs of trust, distributed commit,
security, fractional reserve, commodity proxies,
prioritized transactions, the IMF, game theory,
and so forth.
It's nobody's fault but mine.
I kept hoping it would turn into something more substantial
than word-quibbles and sophistry, so I kept going when I
should have really given up long ago. Well, now I have.
Wrong door.
Sorry.
-Jon
