As soon as wealth changes hands through just means of acquisition, just ownership changes.
When I give to charity, the charity justly owns my gift.
When I trade for an apple, I justly own the apple.
When a robber steals from a victim, the robber does not justly own the booty.
You have not shown that "taxation is theft," as many who share your politics like to say. If you hold that taxation can be theft, depending on the nature of the government, then I would agree. If you hold that taxation is always and everywhere theft, by definition, then I disagree. On the issue of consent (widely believed to separate just from unjust governments), it is certainly important in the aggregate, but any government must deal with individuals who do not consent, like the Hutaree and
"sovereign citizens." The US government has legislated a monopoly on the right to create currency. Gold coins would be legal tender if not for these laws.
The US government has a monopoly on coin minting. It does not have a monopoly on bill printing. In Ithaca, New York, a currency called Ithaca Hours is in circulation. In Berkshire, Massachusetts, many stores accept BerkShares. As long as you aren't minting coins, you are legally entitled to print your own money. You may even promise to give gold in exchange for your money.
Why do you want gold coins to be legal tender? You want to be able use a Gold Eagle to buy one dollar worth of goods at Wal-mart? Legal tender refers to the face value, not the metal value. Wouldn't you rather sell your Gold Eagle at market value (~$1700 at time of writing) and get a lot more than $1? You can do that right now. You are also free to buy and sell gold in other forms, at market prices. Are you against markets? [Edit: I don't know much about American Gold Eagle coins. From a quick look around the Internet, I gather that they come in various denominations. I have seen $5, $10, and $50 coins for sale. In any case, the sale price is always much higher than the face value, which is why these coins would never be used as circulating currency.]
Any country would be foolish to circulate gold coins. Monetary systems that were based on the metal content of the coin (as opposed to the face value) have always been undermined by hoarding and by widespread fraud such as coin clipping, despite harsh legal penalties. A major benefit of money is facilitating transactions, and having to verify the weight and purity of every coin is the opposite of facilitation. The history of money weighs decidedly in favor of nominalism and against metalism. The results would be catastrophic if you required every transaction — most of which are electronic these days — to involve a physical exchange of metal coins.
Most people do not have the option to live in international waters.
Are you saying that governments forbid living in international waters? Do you base your position on positive liberty instead of negative liberty?
However currency is not the source of wealth. Wealth is the product of voluntary mutually beneficial trade resulting from subjective value.
The first statement is true. As for the second one, I don't see why you put trade as the defining element. If I am the only human in the world, and I gather edible berries, then I have wealth in the form of berries. Wealth is the product of labor, capital, and natural resources, and it may or may not be traded.
Anyway, the statement that prompted my post is that "it's the taxpayer's money," not "it's the taxpayer's wealth." So changing the subject from money to wealth is hand waving.
