Technically a statement and not an argument, but even more importantly, it's untrue.
Fiat currency is used as money because we have to pay our taxes with it. The actual value of the money is protection from the violence of the state. This is what "legal tender" means. Use it--or else.
Do you understand the implications of going back to a gold standard? Eventually the gold will come to be represented with claim checks because like its always said, government will just print the money. In the interest of the nation, people will not want to use a whole bunch of differing currencies. People like being able to plan and you can't do that if in one state you have one currency and then for a job you move to a different state and have to use a different currency. We have 300 million plus people in the country. Can you honestly imagine going back to a gold standard? And bitcoins too. What of them? Well if they are no sanctioned by the government who is going to trust their worth? Maybe a few communities here and there but most people are going to retain faith in the dollar until we experience a true hyperinflation. That has yet to happen so yeah its insults because these beliefs persist? What gives the money fiat currency its value? The fact that despite fear mongering, people still trust it.
Capitalism basically means free market. Goods are exchanged voluntarily, you do not even need money for this.
What you need is a value that can be traded. Money represents value, real money has an intrinsic value such as gold, or is at least exchangeable into gold.
Now what any government does is corrupting this system and perverting it. Central banks can print money, its litterally made of thin air, adds to national debt, and the tax payer repays it.
This is how wars are financed.
This is the reason why governments continously invent "problems" which can only be "solved" with more money. Thats the fuel that drives this lunatic financial world.
This is why govermnents have a steady incentive to grow.
And this is why all states with central banks end up in socialism.
And all this is not capitalism, its the very opposite.
Have a look at the books from Friedrich August v. Hayek, eg. The Road to Serfdom, or the work from Ludwig v. Mises.
Hayek actually wrote that Welfare and social spending was not all that bad. Its on page 125 of The reason you have governments creating problems out of nothing is because of the fundamental nature of Capitalism; to capitalize. And what is the definition of capitalize? I urge you to look it up and think about how that can be interpreted by people without your moral values. Does it mean the same thing to everyone? No clearly it does not. And because it does not and the consequences are far too high, we maintain governments. Now can the governments become corrupted by people who want to use it for their own interests? I did not once say this could not happen. But to then say that we would be better of without government control is to assume everyone would get along. Its as ridiculous as the argument put forth by the those who want open borders. "Oh yeah just relax all the laws and allow absolutely anyone into the country, that will end beautifully." This is the same in principle. You take away every single rule and the bad people in the world take advantage.
The argument-to-emotionally-charged-language ratio in this post is staggering.
Do you have any examples of these libertarians you mention being dishonest, unethical, fear-mongers? any evidence of them being proven wrong over and over?
As for public schools, do you have any arguments for why public schools are great for society or just more accusations and emotional language?
Before you blame capitalism for depressions are you familiar with Austrian economics and business cycle theory? Or are you just complaining that we are ignorant of the important literature of the history of our country (which you have not named or explained what that has to do with the need for a state) while not making any effort to understand Libertarian arguments yourself?
Peter Schiff, Mike Maloney, and Alex Jones. All have used fears of economic collapse to mislead the public.They do this through being clever marketers and by convincing people that they have something to be afraid of. Even though they have been proven wrong multiple times with macroeconomics and arguments to the contrary, this distrust in government persists. Now I can empathize with where this comes from. People feel disenfranchised and disconnected from the governments that rule over them and so they think everything should be overthrown. The problem being that values can change and that the political process is not something to be feared. Politicians can have spines we just have to demand it. This is a trend that is commonplace in Libertarian thought however. "The government is always the problem, debts are horrible, deficits are horrible, etc etc." Well if you scare enough people into believing these things how does their behavior change? Well now they listen to whatever you say and go out to buy gold and ammunition and stock up on things they do not really value or need and call everybody a "big government commie" or "Statist." Just like the people who over exaggerate about climate change, these individuals over exaggerate about the economy completely breaking down. The counter argument to complete Anarchy is writing by Thomas Hobbes where he explains the Social Contract. People are willing to cede some of their individual freedom to a monarch because the alternative would be to have society collapse. So when people use the term "Statist", not you in particular, what does that even mean? That I support having a strong moral government? Yes in fact, I do support that.
"I find it interesting that this economic collapse has yet to materialize"
Every fiat currency in history has eventually collapsed. You dont even need to go that far to see the latest collapses, Venezuela, Argentina, Zimbabwe. I am pretty sure the people who were using these currencies wished they knew about this inevitable tragedy. Are you assuming it can happen to other countries but somehow not USA? well, where is the argument? I think its well known this system is not sustainable. The US national debt has doubled in the last 8 years. Also, Donald Trump has mentioned defaulting on the debt. The collapse is not a matter of if, Its a matter of when. I am glad we have people like Ron Paul and the prolific Alex Jones speaking about this.
You wanna know what is unethical? Telling people to "calm the hell down with this economic collapse BS" when there are people who are hunting dogs and cats right now because of a collapse!
And yet, with time a new national currency is introduced because it is in the best interest of everyone in society to not have these ridiculous disruptions and revolutions happening all the time. If I recall correctly Zimbabwe is still a sovereign, functioning nation. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make by saying it has experienced hyperinflation in the past? So what? And despite what every so called "economist" has said about the US and hyperinflation here, has it actually happened yet? No it hasn't. Despite all of the fears over the federal reserve printing money, we still have an economy. An economy and government that favors financial interests, but that can be ameliorated with moral arguments even if the federal reserve is what people make it out to be. There is no actual evidence that it is. And besides, governments have to spend more money than they take in. They are not the same as households. If you balance the budgets there is no money in circulation. Economics Junkie has a great blog detailing why governments have to spend more than they take in for anyone even interested in not continuing this Libertarian diatribe.
Not a single argument, but lots and lots of insults.
Argument 1: Why do people trust fiat currencies even though they have no "intrinsic" value according to Libertarians?:
Answer: Fiat currency is used as money because people still have faith in it. You might not but millions of transactions are carried out with it every single day. It does in fact have intrinsic value because it is legal tender. If you look a standard dollar bill it will say "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Because it is required to be accepted by every business by law it will likely not lose its value wholesale. If for some reason Libertarians succeed in scaring the population into abandoning the dollar then a new national currency will just pop up to replace it. True there are fluctuations in the trust that people have in their currencies and sometimes there are crises but that does not mean the world is coming to an end.
Argument 2 which is a reiteration of number one:
Answer: People like to have certainty and structure otherwise why would civilization exist as it does today in its highly structured, hierarchical manner? (Consider why the US hasn't collapsed despite fears over the Federal Reserve being propagated for years, if that is even something one is willing to consider) Yes there are obvious problems with society, in particular government as is obvious with a Trump presidency so far installing Cronies into his cabinet. But that does not mean we completely abandon the social norms, customs, and systems we have developed over the millennia. What will Libertarians replace the current system with? Freedom? That is too vague an answer to convince anybody as should be obvious by now.
Rather than seek to destroy the fabric that holds societies together, why not instead become active and persuade people with well reasoned and articulated arguments. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "Statist" or "Commie" or "Fascist" hasn't lead to very desirable results in terms of swinging anyone towards Libertarianism has it? Not accusing you or Stefan directly of doing this but for every other Libertarian who is still here who does. This is also a lesson in critical thinking. If the thoughts I am expressing do not line up with thoughts that you currently hold, then it does not apply to you or anyone you are affiliated with who has changed their minds on this subject either. From empirical evidence I have gathered from people on this forum, many many people still hold these views. You have to ask yourself, was I referring specifically to you specifically or to Libertarians in general?
Argument 3: Why is gold archaic as a standard for the money that society as a whole uses? Well exactly the reason why Libertarians argue it is superior: because it is scarce. With a population of over 300 million, how do you imagine this will work on a national scale? Gold would have to be valued at a lot of money or there would have to be lots of other competing currencies. Because people like simplicity and knowing that they money they used has to be accepted by everyone else for debts, people can plan. With a whole bunch of competing currencies, one week it's this currency but then oh wait people's values change and the next week it's a whole other currency. And on and on and on this goes and people's trust eventually begins to wear thin. With government money people by law have to pay you in it and denominate the price for their goods and services it in because it makes people's lives easier. Libertarians seem to be opposed to making people's lives easier by arguing for "competing currencies."
References to authors who have made similar arguments to mine: Thomas Paine, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin. Thomas Hobbes actually inspired the founding fathers of America with his argument for the social contract and why governments form so I'd say that is also pretty relevant considering some Libertarians really love their Constitutions.
I want to make it clear that I am not accusing you Michael or Stefan of clinging to these ideas. I have heard Stef's video why I was wrong about Libertarians and that was the basis of this posting. This was not an attempt to smear you or Stefan's name. And by the by, sometimes you gotta just be straight up with people. Having cookie cutter, perfectly crystalline arguments to present to Libertarians is never possible because no matter how many ways I try to counter their nonsense, I get the exact same responses over and over and over. I can recall Machiavelli famously writing that sometimes you have to be harsh in order to bolster people's confidence in your leadership. I get the feeling that in some small way Mad Dog Mattis was influenced by Machiavelli based on interpretations I have seen of him. I am sort of paraphrasing here but he pretty much sad "Whenever you are in a room with people, always have a plan to kill them with a knife." Or something to that effect.