I think the distinctions between populism and libertarianism are worth pursuing.   They are indeed opposed on a number of key points, as I’ve been arguing, but there is also common ground in the opposition to strong central authority.   I think that the history of populism holds important surprises (certainly that’s been my experience) which truly take us beyond the idealized market-economics of conservatives and libertarians of recent decades. 

More on this later I hope.

If you haven’t received a copy of my book from my publisher (I seem to recall an exchange to that end a few weeks ago) let me know privately and I’ll send you a copy.  I’m at:  adrian@oecblue.com

http://www.populistamerica.com/vermont_the_first_populist_republic

Looks like you commented on the article there as well, might be worth a 2nd look! We’re also running a review of the book that he mentioned sometime this week, I think it’ll provide some interesting perspective here as well. I also personally recommend Saul Cornell’s book “The other Founders” which you can probably find on Amazon.

Adrian – thanks for the head’s up on the book coming my way. Definitely looking forward to it. Whether we always agree or not, I hope you’ll continue to challenge ideas as you’ve been doing here. Such discourse is essential for our future.

By the way, I’ve been called everything from a populist to a commie, to a fascist to a libertarian. I guess that’s what happens to people who don’t fit into the D vs R world that we live in!

As far as money goes, I believe there’s an important place for a standard, and as I’ve said above, am totally opposed to imposing a gold standard on society (actually don’t approve much of imposition in general, but that’s another discussion) – what do you envision as proper?

Hmmm . . .  I must have hit a nerve. 

I have in fact written such a work:  FIXING THE SYSTEM:  A HISTORY OF POPULISM, ANCIENT & MODERN (Continuum books, 2008)  More info about it available if you google it at amazon.com. Michael has been sent a copy, and maybe he’ll write a review.  I would think this website the perfect place.

You’re free of course to try to redefine term a term like populism, but the downside is that you’re apt to run into someone like me who knows something about its history and its continued importance, and who objects to confusing that history and its importance by imposing another, quite contrary definition.  Populists were not libertarians and you don’t have to take it from me.  There’s a large literature on the subject.

Read my book.  I would think you’d be interested.

Seems to me that there’s really nothing on this website that I know of that makes the claim that the Populist Party is the same historical group that you seem to revere so much, Adrian. I don’t know a lot about that group, but didn’t they shut their doors over a hundred years ago????

While you might be right that the populists of the 1890’s believed in certain things, does that mean that people who don’t agree with those things exactly don’t qualify?  Seems pretty silly to me, and in my opinion, and a bit elitist on your part  too. 

Now I know that you don’t seem to like definitions unless they agree with how YOU define words, but here’s what Merriam Webster says “populist” means (and my comments):

1: a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people  ; especially often capitalized : a member of a United States political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
(I believe the Populist Party of today promotes the ideals of the common people – such as me.)
(The 1891 party is long, long gone – so that’s more of a historical society discussion, no?)

2: a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people
(this seems to fit much more closely to what reality is in today’s world)

Maybe you should write an article for this website, Adrian, that outlines your vision for a modern populist movement – rather than passive-aggressively sniping in the way you’re doing here?

By the way, I hate it when discussion threads get so off topic like this.  Isn’t this supposed to be about money as debt?

The bottom line, to me, is that people should be free to contract however they’d like.  Contract violations need to be strongly dealt with.  All in all, as long as you don’t send a bunch of men with guns after me for buying something with a kind of money that YOU don’t want to use, then I’m totally ok with your ideas.

But this is only sometimes the case, most visibly in a bazarre or flea market.  But most of our markets aren’t like that.  Imagine a merchant in a small town who has many customers but no competition.  He is in a p0sition to insist on the currency which suits him best, even though it may not suit his customers.  Even if he has a few competitors he can connive with them to the same end, as long as their are many more customers than merchants.  Or imagine a modern global corporation, which often has the same advantages on a much larger scale.

The idea that there are many buyers and sellers, or many counter-parties to all contracts, is a beguiling vision, but it does not reflect the imperatives of production and distribution, which often concentrate power at certain choke points. 

This was precisely the problem faced by 19th century American populists, where many farmers had to deal with a few banks and railroads. They did not take the libertarian turn because it made no sense in the face of their experience.   They turned instead to collective action, and were quite happy to use the force of the state if they could. 

One of the things they wanted from the state was a non-usurious financial system, that is, a legal tender which would not leave them indebted to creditors.  Now I agree with you that anyone ought to be free to use any sort of currency agreed mutually with others (and that you should not be punished for it); it’s just that this seems possible only in limited situations, and it doesn’t seem to hold up as a basis for a political economy (though libertarians think so).

Populists instead placed their faith in democratic, accountable government, rooted in local communities.  They still lived in a Jeffersonian world where this was in many cases, especially in local communities, how things still worked. 

So I come back again to the question of whether you are a populist or a libertarian. 

So, when I’m referring to “force” – I’m probably not being clear…..meaning, I wouldn’t forcibly prevent people from freely agreeing to use paper or silver or gold, or anything – as their own monetary unit.

Breach of contract is an entirely different issue altogether. In a society where different kinds of currency were being used, contracts would stipulate what form would be required for payment in advance. If someone refused to honor that contract, that’s a violation of property rights, and arbitrators or the courts would be necessary to compel compliance and/or pay restitution.

There would also be situations where people wouldn’t forsee problems with their agreements, and again, courts or arbitration would be required to come up with a proper method of payment, and that would likely be whatever the most common currency in use at the time (unless both parties agreed otherwise)

But this, again, is completely different than compelling people to use, or not use, certain forms of currency.

Bottom line is pretty simple – if all parties to a contract agree to use some good as a form of payment, a currency – they should be allowed to do so. That’s free choice.

I guess the question is this – If the owner of the market in my neighborhood preferred payment for groceries in gold coins, and I preferred to pay in gold coins and made a purchase there, should either or both of us be fined or imprisoned?

Looking forward to hearing more from you on this and other issues in the near future.

If we were to logically break the term down into its two parts, we’d see quite clearly that anything – be it US dollars, or Gold-backed notes, or Iron, or pearls, or cookies, or chickens, or anything – could be a fiat money. The important thing to consider is that it has to be imposed by government force.

I think Spooner has made a good point on money itself as well – that it’s a good all on its own. Can we call gold coins currency? I would think so. How about cookies? I don’t mean to be silly, just trying to make a point. As long as a certain good is being used in society as a “medium of exchange” then that is the monetary unit for that society. If it is imposed by government force, then that same money would be fiat money.

That should be all my rambling on this particular issue. I would like to note as well that there’s a huge difference between people who are proponents of using gold as a currency, such as myself, and those who want to use the force of government to impose a so-called “gold standard”on the entire country, which I’m confident could lead to some disastrous consequences if forced upon people.

What’s important from the Populist Party’s point of view is that we support the right of people to be free from coercion – even in the field of money. While it’s clear that a government-issued currency/note will likely be the primary currency in any country, we oppose the “punishment” of people who choose to use other goods for their own personal exchanges.

The powerful, all through history, have done their best to control their subjects by controlling their money – and they’ve done it quite successfully. That needs to change.