That’s a fair clarification, and I largely agree with the framing. It’s important to separate cause from outcome. States did not wake up one day and decide to “print money.” They emerged to enforce debt contracts, taxation, and interest obligations at scale. Monetary monopoly was an outcome of that process, not the original goal. Credit and interest pre-date fiat. What fiat did was abstract and centralise enforcement, making debt expansion easier, less visible, and politically survivable. Interest itself isn’t inherently evil. It’s a price for time and risk. The problem arises when interest is layered on top of money that can be created without constraint, requiring perpetual expansion to service past obligations. That feedback loop is what drives: • growing state power • permanent deficits • coercive enforcement • financialisation over production Sound money doesn’t eliminate cooperation, contracts, or credit. It re-anchors them to reality. With hard constraints: • credit becomes selective • capital allocation tightens • growth must come from productivity, not dilution You still get civil order. You still get contracts. You just get far less leverage over society through monetary abstraction. The goal isn’t utopia or anarchism. It’s reducing the surface area for systemic abuse. Bitcoin doesn’t solve human nature. It limits how much damage monetary systems can amplify it. That’s a meaningful distinction.