Mark, all; The question of hard money is one of whether those who have saved hav

Mark, all;
The question of hard money is one of whether those who have saved have a right to appreciation in purchasing power produced by the demand by others, or whether those who have saved money have a right to non-depreciation of the purchasing power of that money despite the costs of non-deprecision (non-inflation) on others, and despite that no commodity holds a fixed value, so why should the population of non savers grant special privileges (the equivalent of copyright and patent) to savers at their expense. WHy not demand savers put money to work or store it in another commodity instead of money so that such demand for special privilegs of isolation of variation from the value of money as a commodity versus all other cmmodities. In other words why do you demand the privilege of price fixing?

The reasons misesian and rothbardians chase this nonsense is just middle class marxism – demanding institutions provide privileges to a class. The reason for rothbard and mises’ claims is to precisely provide such advantages to the jewish financial class in eastern europe at the cost of the populations that produced. The other reason of course, is because they wish to privatize pubic gains while evading paying for public commons (common goods). And the last is that they want to be free of warranty – and able to conduct baiting into hazard, profit from asymmetry of risk, not warranty their products or services, and evade suits of fraud for having done so. Ergo there is no moral ethic behind mises and rothbard. There is however behind natural law – which is very close to the christian austrian program, and hayek’s life’s work.

Cheers
CD

Reply addressees: @MfgMach @NoahRevoy @manknownaspaul