I know plenty of people who hate both
The principal difference being that the government issues the currency in the first place. If they didn’t collect taxes the money wouldn’t be worth anything.
So “making you do something you wouldn’t do otherwise” is true, but it’s also allowing you to do something you couldn’t do otherwise.
If they didn’t collect taxes the money wouldn’t be worth anything.
wat. lol. that is legitimately not how currency works. governments didnt invent currency through taxes. currency came about through standardization of value exchange.
According to Adam Smith who was just imagining how money “must have” come about, yeah. But not according to anthropologists who have traced physical artifacts.
See Debt: The First 5,000 Years and/or Finding The Money
There’s actually a very specific section of Finding The Money that covers this: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Mrje-m01kI8&t=1708
the information in your video doesnt negate anything i said and it doesnt say anything about taxations being the source of currency. it certainly talks about currency being used for taxation but it doesnt imply that taxation was the source of currency (though currency does help with implementing a tax system, but there are plenty of tax systems that didnt use currency either)
you’re confusing record keeping and the need for a transferable representation of value which are necessary once specialized skills develop within a community with taxation. the ‘traced physical artifacts’ are what you can view as signal bias in the analysis. if the actual behavior that triggered the development of currency (the need for a standardization of value between individuals and groups of individuals) doesnt leave any ‘records’ then you find historical records of taxes etc you’ll come to the wrong conclusion. that taxes caused currency to develop, when in fact it was the group dynamics that caused it to develop.
