You made a comparison to people's right to swing their fist, and that this right ends. So in other words, you did, at the very least imply that what currency people used should not be their choice.
So yes, it does seem like you want to take away people's choices on what money they should be aloud to you.
You can't have it both ways here. Don't say "I am not trying to take away your choice!", And then at the same time say that the right should be curtailed.
> Switching to a "backed" model for currency removes the freedom by stapling back together two things that don't need to be stapled together
Or... You could use it if you want, and don't use it if you don't want.
> Unbundling represents maximum freedom
Or... A person could individually decide if they want it bundled, or not bundled, for themselves, by choosing which currency to use.
That is the thing that maximizes personal choice.
Also, please avoid these long tit-for-tat arguments that don't go anywhere and only continue because it's hard to let go. They don't interest other readers, and they end in ill feeling.
Cool. Fine. Then you should have just said that, and you shouldn't have said the previous stuff about not wanting to prevent people from making decisions about what money that they voluntarily choose to use.
Can't have it both ways.
- I asked you to attempt to justify the positive social value and implications of a deflationary currency, and you replied a number of times "freedom" and told me that there was no such thing as a stupid decision because someone made it. You re-iterated "freedom" as though it was an answer to my question many times, and then said that "freedom" was intrinsically awesome, which is again, not an answer to my question.
- I don't care if some people want to barter. I was trying to have a conversation about whether a deflationary currency is good for society as a whole, and what the impact would be if it took over more of society. I made numerous arguments why this would be a bad thing, to which you again replied "#freedom".
- Freedom of choice is intrinsically valuable, what people choose to do with it may or may not be, and worth a conversation on a case by case basis. Especially if impacts a lot of people, and we as a society reserve the right to curtail said choices if they don't make sense. Nobody's arguing you shouldn't be able to choose things, and similarly, you can't possibly believe anything you choose is good because you chose it, and that choices shouldn't be curtailed if they lead to negative outcomes. You know, like crimes.
- I also made the argument that the current model provides maximum freedom of choice by decoupling a long-term store of value from a unit of exchange and account. That way you can choose what you want to back your personal economy with. It also represents a voting mechanism for capital allocation. Switching to a "backed" model for currency removes the freedom by stapling back together two things that don't need to be stapled together and drags in a number of negative social consequences. Unbundling represents maximum freedom, something I figured you'd be a fan of.