It amazes me that some find my rejection of appeals to monetary "sovereignty" shocking, for I'm asking nothing more than arguments for state provision or control of exchange media be justified on the same public welfare grounds used to justify other government undertakings. 1/

Appeals to "monetary sovereignty" are a mere dodge: an attempt to have a medieval notion stand in for actual arguments to the effect that some or all exchange media qualify as "public goods," are natural monopolies, or otherwise cannot safely be provided by the private sector. 2/

I am _not_ asserting that the government should have nothing to do with money. I am rejecting the opposite view, namely, that state control of money is a sovereign prerogative that cannot be questioned. In modern democracies, there is, or ought to be, no such thing.