nations also used to be convinced it is inherent to their sovereignty to tell us who to worship and who to marry. this is no longer the case.
not sure there is a principled reason why the power to govern the exchange of goods and services (which is what money facilitates) should be up to them.
> nations also used to be convinced it is inherent to their sovereignty to tell us who to worship and who to marry. this is no longer the case.
Except in some theocraties where you're 2nd class citizen when you don't worship the official God (Israel, some Muslims countries...)
And in the US, the President oauth is on the Bible and "under God" if I remember clearly. So, in a way, it is still the case: how would a Jew or Muslim or Buddhist be able to do that?
Governements are elected to provide services for the good of the nations. That include security: physically (police, army) and economically... so the money is a way for a state to provide security for the trade
> And in the US, the President oauth is on the Bible and "under God" if I remember clearly. So, in a way, it is still the case: how would a Jew or Muslim or Buddhist be able to do that?
Federal public officials in the US can swear on anything they want to, the Bible is not a requirement.
but why should it be up to a company like facebook? What inherent right does facebook have to create a currency. The only reason it is able to do so in the first place is because of the legal framework and protections that exist thanks to the nations it does bussiness with.
not sure there is a principled reason why the power to govern the exchange of goods and services (which is what money facilitates) should be up to them.