RE: Knowledge of History + Economics = Disbelief in Government
I have studied Austrian economics, and while I find it spectacular in the field of ethics, I find it utterly lacking in the understanding of money. The article is speculation that's based on the barter fallacy ("Menger pointed out that even in a state of barter, goods would have different degrees of saleableness or saleability"). There is no evidence of barter being the basis for any economic system.
The article points out that a ruler would have create precise ratios between the newly defined money and all other goods--this is almost right. The ruler defines a precise ratio of taxes. One unit of money is a tax token equal to one unit of itself. One dollar pays one dollar of tax liability, per definition. All other prices follow. Because the ruler demands tax tokens that only he can create, the subjects are willing to work for it in order to pay their taxes. Thus spending occurs first, then taxation later. Because taxes apply to ALL subjects in the ruler's jurisdiction, the tax token becomes universal and can be used as money.
Again, open to recorded debate on this.
A ruler is not necessary. What takes place is the greatest good/service provider chooses to accept a certain denomination.
This can include governments, but it isn't exclusive to governments, as popular merchants would choose to sell goods based on some monetary metric. ex. Pearls. Gold dust/nuggets. Salt. Etc.
The money form also had subjective value use, so that is why it arose naturally to begin with.
Never said a ruler was necessary. I'm saying that's the only way it has been done until now.
Again, money cannot be a real asset. There is no evidence of this happening in history. It has been be financial in nature--that is, by definition it creates an asset and a liability at the same. When a ruler demands a tax, it creates an objective value, which is it protects you from the ruler's tax-collecting thugs.