Then you arent as anti-authority as you think you are.
Do tell.
You want to prevent price discovery and market competition. That requires very powerful central authority.
Central banking is a form of authority. If I have more money than you, I have power over you - and the central bank has power over all. In an absolutely ideal society, there would be no money - allocation of resources would be based on collective needs first, then individual wants.
Of course, we're speaking in absolute ideals here. I'm aware of resource scarcity.
You dont like central banking? Fantastic! Neither does Ron Paul, and neither do I. But money existed long before central banks did because it arises naturally to address a market need.
Society needs market prices to allocate resources rationally. This is why a group of libertarians who hate central banking as much as anyone (Ludwig Vin Mises and the Austrian School) were able to correctly predict the fall of the Soviet Union way back in 1921.
The USSR was a joke. They squelched uprisings in anarchist Spain with brute force, which means they never really gave a shit about the people. Let's not talk about the tens (maybe hundreds) of millions killed under their direct command or endorsement.
But you're imagining a system that relies on market forces. What are the alternatives to market forces?
The alternative to voluntary market transactions is coercion, just like the alternative to consensual sex, freely choosing who you marry, etc.
I suspect that you arrived at your way of thinking because you mixed up a free market with crony capitalism, based on your comment about central banks. I'm not trying to bust your chops btw, most people in the US know literally nothing about the Federal Reserve.
The below gives a good overview of what I mean when I say that crony capitalism =/= a free market.
Capitalism requires a force to act upon an individual. If your force is greater than my force, we are unequal. Hence, capitalism cannot assure equality.
