Nature of money

I've said before that money is a right to acquire a good still to be determined.

But to every right corresponds a duty. Whose is the duty to pay for this good? Of the issuer of money, of course. As money is used to buy goods, its first issuer, who first used it to buy a good, should be responsible to give something in exchange for this good.

Money, therefore, is a debt; a debt of who issues and uses it. Government used to pay its debt in gold, but today it doesn't do it anymore. Government can't go bankrupt, commercial societies can, but government can't.

Who issues money has, by definition, the power to have it accepted. This power, then, implies the obligation of other of accepting it. But this obligation can become merely nominal if it is sustained by the confidence money will be successfully repassed. To demoralize money is equal to not wanting to accept it.*

So money comes to the scene from this strange situation where the issuer oblies the receptor to a credit he will never pay. But the receptor, in his turn, starts to have the right to buy from another; and this goes on.

Is it true, nevertheless, that this right, money, contrary to every other right, does not have a duty as its correlate? Not exactly. Government's duty is not paid to whom detains singularly money, it is paid to the group of people it governs, coordenating their activities Without right of appealing, government pay its debt this way, that means, governing whom it governs.

*Were money issued by a non-monopolist organization, that means, not the state, there woudn't be the obligation of accepting it. In this situation money would be accepted only because it convinced its receptor of being what it is, that is, a generally accepted medium of exchange, not merely the material, be it gold, paper, etc, where it inscribed itself.

In this case, money is only confirmed as a right when it is accepted. Before it is an expectant right.