[Kaj]

There's a lot of talk here about which system is "good for the economy". To me, this is the wrong question.

To quote Nielsio (sometimes he's right despite the flak)... "Is it voluntary?"

If we are going to have a federal govt issuing money, at least it should not be a criminal offense for someone to issue their own notes of tender. If people want to use Bob Dollars and exchange them for goods with other people who voluntarily trade with them, there's no reason in a free society that they should go to jail for it. Having an alternative promotes competition and may allow for better systems to emerge and gain acceptance on their own accord rather than be forced on everyone through law and threat of force. And if no alternative is as good as the US dollar, then so be it, people will choose to use the dollar almost exclusively without needing to be forced to do so.

This happens all the time. We use the wrong metric to define "good". Economic progress has become the only standard of good in this country and people need to realize that if we use the metric of "free", the economic progress will generally follow anyway, but even if not quite as high (doubtful, but let's assume possible), the standard of living will still be impacted in other ways -- like living more freely and responsibly like a nation of free men and women. Imagine that.

So to sum up: I don't have any specific objection to public tender in a democracy so long as it isn't forced on everyone through the threat of force as the only alternative. This is basically my stance on most govt programs.