[jgwil2]

> More directly, empirical knowledge obtained via experts, science or scientism is unreliable as compared to our a priori knowledge about the nature of man.

How so exactly? What is your a priori knowledge of "the nature of man?" It obviously derives from introspection, since any knowledge of humans other than yourself is by definition empirical. So what you're really saying is that you personally find there to be moral hazards inherent in this scheme (i.e. you would be inclined to abuse it if you were in a position to do so), and you impute that to the rest of humanity, even though, according to your argument, your knowledge of their nature is inherently unreliable.

Setting aside this fallacious line of reasoning, I still have no idea what your actual point is.

[aww_dang]

Men are fallible, prone to corruption. I'd put that up there with a triangle having three sides. Of course if you believe so strongly to the contrary we can disagree on this point.

As for the rest, if you don't see the historical and current abuse centered around the issuance of debt backed currency, there's really nothing to say here.