Do you actually need government to declare and legitimize money? Isn't it so that ordinary citizens have declared money in many communities -- that we have even done so on a limited basis here in Santa Cruz? Isn't money, at its heart, a representation of value -- ideally of value already existing in the world? Can you have money without people working and/or trading goods and services to back it up? What is wrong with money as a representation/store of value, so that we can trade over time and distance? Is the Seer's problem with money simply a problem with government, and might that problem go away if government weren't the dictator of how many monetary units (here, dollars) are in circulation? Isn't government's printing of too much money to chase too few goods and services, and its subsequent tightening of the money supply, the cause of inflation and economic cycles? Could there be much, if any, inflation, if money could only enter circulation once value had been produced?