Re: Digest Number 21

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_QEWmKyGGDGfPGU3OkhSU_7uxq_2ChAhN_xjVyqXFPAPFXY9WLDF-6TywKH2ZjMddHMb>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:39:57 +1300

At 10:51 p.m. 23/02/2007, you wrote:
>Which leads to states declaring that 'defacing the portrait of the
>king' is treason and punishing the miscreants. Taxes are the real
>goal here for most states. The state demands that all transactions
>are conducted in their currency so that they can correctly assess the tax.

Historically not the case for most RW civilizations. They were quite happy to accept
foreign currency of proven worth. For example, the Mexican Silver Dollar was widely
traded in Ming and Manchu China while Roman coins were used in India. Greek cities continued to produce their own currency under Roman Imperial rule.

Another consideration is that due to straited circumstances, the state currency
may be so debased that the tax collectors refuse to accept it.

Lastly there's a unit of exchange which hasn't been mentioned so far: ounces of (gold or silver) dust. Simple and widely accepted.

--Peter Metcalfe