I thought that came from much further back, when the metal was the value and the face stamped on it was to certify the metal content at the promise of the stamper. Taking a sliver of silver off of 50 coins could be melted down and made into a 51st coin so defacing was just part of the counterfeiting process that devalued the original coins if anyone bothered to weigh them, or something like that.
Mostly because you can discourage a certain amount of bastardry by making it illegal to do one of the steps, while making everyone carry around scales to do business kind of defeats the purpose of coinage, which is to enable people to make transactions quickly and with very clear ideas of what they are exchanging. Assuming you trust the coin system to certify the coin which is supposed to be one ounce of silver actually is one ounce of silver, it’s very fast and easy to say ‘give me one silver and I will give you two hens.’ The whole process is done almost as fast as you can say it. If you don’t trust the coinage, you have to get a set of weights, which both sides of the transaction have to trust are accurate, a scale, which both sides have to trust is accurate, and then carefully weigh the coins, doing math to find the correct total weight, possibly a way to measure volume so you can check density as a stand-in for metal content, and doing this whole process every time you transact. There’s a whole other element around taxes as motivation to use currency but that’s a whole layer unto itself. People will tolerate a certain amount of authoritarianism if it makes their day-to-day feel easier/safer.
Coinage enables trade with people who you don’t trust to even be there a month later, much less to come back to repay a debt, regardless of an adherence to capitalism or no. If you like, take away any capitalist hierarchies and imagine everyone involved as artisans and subsistence workers who make their way in the world by the produce of their own hands, no wages or exploitative bourgeoise. It’s still useful to have a way to engage in exchange with someone who you don’t have reason to trust.
Trust has to exist somewhere. In state-regulated currency, it is trust in the willingness of the state’s enforcers to enact violence on those who try to mess about with the currency and trust in most people’s desire not to have state violence enacted upon them. In a stateless society, the trust has to be maintained or there will be no exchange. No exchange means lower quality of life. Most people are quite happy to live with a little state violence if it means they get to live an easier life, or even just live to see tomorrow. Moralizing doesn’t stop the would-be king from cutting off heads until the survivors shut up and pay their taxes, and sarcasm undermines your ability to make a point.
I thought that came from much further back, when the metal was the value and the face stamped on it was to certify the metal content at the promise of the stamper. Taking a sliver of silver off of 50 coins could be melted down and made into a 51st coin so defacing was just part of the counterfeiting process that devalued the original coins if anyone bothered to weigh them, or something like that.
Still. Seems like a pretty weird way to enforce that. Why do all the authoritarianism when the obvious answer would be to weigh your coinage?
Mostly because you can discourage a certain amount of bastardry by making it illegal to do one of the steps, while making everyone carry around scales to do business kind of defeats the purpose of coinage, which is to enable people to make transactions quickly and with very clear ideas of what they are exchanging. Assuming you trust the coin system to certify the coin which is supposed to be one ounce of silver actually is one ounce of silver, it’s very fast and easy to say ‘give me one silver and I will give you two hens.’ The whole process is done almost as fast as you can say it. If you don’t trust the coinage, you have to get a set of weights, which both sides of the transaction have to trust are accurate, a scale, which both sides have to trust is accurate, and then carefully weigh the coins, doing math to find the correct total weight, possibly a way to measure volume so you can check density as a stand-in for metal content, and doing this whole process every time you transact. There’s a whole other element around taxes as motivation to use currency but that’s a whole layer unto itself. People will tolerate a certain amount of authoritarianism if it makes their day-to-day feel easier/safer.
So… what you’re saying is the capitalists have never been trustworthy or deserving of respect at any point in history!?
Why else would one egg not ultimately be transferrable to one egg a couple month’s later!?
… OHHH THAT’S RIGHT, you want to alienate the producers from the consumers! Silly me…
Coinage enables trade with people who you don’t trust to even be there a month later, much less to come back to repay a debt, regardless of an adherence to capitalism or no. If you like, take away any capitalist hierarchies and imagine everyone involved as artisans and subsistence workers who make their way in the world by the produce of their own hands, no wages or exploitative bourgeoise. It’s still useful to have a way to engage in exchange with someone who you don’t have reason to trust.
Trust has to exist somewhere. In state-regulated currency, it is trust in the willingness of the state’s enforcers to enact violence on those who try to mess about with the currency and trust in most people’s desire not to have state violence enacted upon them. In a stateless society, the trust has to be maintained or there will be no exchange. No exchange means lower quality of life. Most people are quite happy to live with a little state violence if it means they get to live an easier life, or even just live to see tomorrow. Moralizing doesn’t stop the would-be king from cutting off heads until the survivors shut up and pay their taxes, and sarcasm undermines your ability to make a point.