Individual Liberty - Evernote

not in this, but in limiting by law the security for these promises to pay to a special
kind of property, limited in quantity and easily monopolizable.
It is doubtful if there is anything more variable in its purchasing power than labor. The
causes of this are partly natural, such as the changing conditions of production, and
partly and principally artificial, such as the legal monopolies that impart fictitious
values. But labor expended in certain directions is unquestionably more constant in its
average results than when expended in other directions. Hence the advantage of using
the commodities resulting from the former for the redemption of currency whenever
redemption shall be demanded. Whether gold and silver are among these commodities
is a question, not of principle, but of statistics. As a matter of fact, the holders of good
redeemable money seldom ask for any other redemption than its acceptance in the
market and its final cancellation by the issuer's restoration of the securities on which it
was issued. But in case any other redemption is desired, it is necessary to adopt for the
purpose some commodity easily transferable and most nearly invariable in value.
Does Mr. Ingalls mean that all money must be abolished? I can see no other inference
from his position. For there are only two kinds of money - commodity money and
credit money: The former he certainly does not believe in, the latter he thinks
fraudulent and unsafe. Are we, then, to stop exchanging the products of our labor?
It is clearly the right of every man to gamble if he chooses to, and he has as good a
right to make his bets on the rise and fall of grain prices as on anything else; only he
must not gamble with loaded dice, or be allowed special privileges whereby he can
control the price of grain. Hence, in a free and open market, these transactions where
neither equivalent is transferred are legitimate enough. But they are unwise, because,
apart from the winning or losing of the bet, there is no advantage to be gained from
them. Transactions, on the other hand, in which only one equivalent is immediately
transferred are frequently of the greatest advantage, as they enable men to get
possession of tools which they immediately need, but cannot immediately pay for. Of
course the promise to pay is liable to be more or less valuable at maturity than when
issued, but so is the property originally transferred. The borrower is no more exempt
than the lender from the variations in value. And the interests of the holder of property
who neither borrows nor lends are also just as much affected by them. There is an
element of chance in all property relations. So far as this is due to monopoly and
privilege, we must do our best to abolish it; so far as it is natural and inevitable, we
must get along with it as best we can, but not be frightened by it into discarding credit
and money, the most potent instruments of association and civilization.
Liberty is published not so much to thoroughly inform its readers regarding the ideas
which it advocates as to interest them to seek this thorough information through other
channels. For instance, in regard to free money, there is a book- "Mutual Banking," by
William B. Greene - which sets forth the evils of money monopoly and the blessings
of gratuitous credit in a perfectly plain and convincing way to all who will take the
pains to study and understand it. Liberty can only state baldly the principles which
Greene advocates and hint at some of their results. Whomsoever such statements and
hints serve to interest can and will secure the book of me for a small sum.
Substantially the same views, presented in different ways, are to be found in the
financial writings of Lysander Spooner, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Josiah Warren, and,