Then at one time you said that fiat and commodity based currencies are the same

When people say "fiat" they usually mean "no intrinsic value." I took that to be what you meant, because in the context of your statement, you put fiat and commodity currency together as performing an identical function. In other words, in YOUR CONTEXT, you suggested that a "commodity currency" could be used as an intermediary for barter in an exclusive sense, since you grouped it with "fiat." I thus elaborated and stated explicitly that if a "commodity currency" is demanded, it is identical to both the common interpretation, and the actual definition of "fiat." I further elaborated that if it is NOT demanded, it fits perfectly into a barter system.

Context is king. Taking things out of context, intentionally or otherwise, can make for some very confusing conversations. I suggest the context was clear on my part. Perhaps you were looking for issues that weren't there?

and/or the only way a free market can exist

This by itself is a part of my argument. You have not addressed the argument I put forth, rather, you called it a "no true scotsman" argument without actually showing how I misrepresented your counterexamples. From my perspective, I addressed it directly.

You CAN'T have a free market unless the decisions on what is traded in a transaction is free (the definition of barter). That "free decision" includes what to use as a medium of exchange (if anything) in each and every trade. That is the crux of my argument. Please address it directly.

Then at one time you said that fiat and commodity based currencies are the same

When people say "fiat" they usually mean "no intrinsic value." I took that to be what you meant, because in the context of your statement, you put fiat and commodity currency together as performing an identical function. In other words, in YOUR CONTEXT, you suggested that a "commodity currency" could be used as an intermediary for barter in an exclusive sense, since you grouped it with "fiat." I thus elaborated and stated explicitly that if a "commodity currency" is demanded, it is identical to both the common interpretation, and the actual definition of "fiat." I further elaborated that if it is NOT demanded, it fits perfectly into a barter system.

Context is king. Taking things out of context, intentionally or otherwise, can make for some very confusing conversations. I suggest the context was clear on my part. Perhaps you were looking for issues that weren't there?

and/or the only way a free market can exist

This by itself is a part of my argument. You have not addressed the argument I put forth, rather, you called it a "no true scotsman" argument without actually showing how I misrepresented your counterexamples. From my perspective, I addressed it directly.

You CAN'T have a free market unless the decisions on what is traded in a transaction is perpetually free (the definition of barter). That "free decision" includes what to use as a medium of exchange (if anything) in each and every trade. That is the crux of my argument. Please address it directly.

Then at one time you said that fiat and commodity based currencies are the same

When people say "fiat" they usually mean "no intrinsic value." I took that to be what you meant, because in the context of your statement, you put fiat and commodity currency together as performing an identical function. In other words, in YOUR CONTEXT, you suggested that a "commodity currency" could be used as an intermediary for barter in an exclusive sense, since you grouped it with "fiat." I thus elaborated and stated explicitly that if a "commodity currency" is demanded, it is identical to both the common interpretation, and the actual definition of "fiat." I further elaborated that if it is NOT demanded, it fits perfectly into a barter system.

Context is king. Taking things out of context, intentionally or otherwise, can make for some very confusing conversations. I suggest the context was clear on my part. Perhaps you were looking for issues that weren't there?

and/or the only way a free market can exist

This by itself is a part of my argument. You have not addressed the argument I put forth, rather, you called it a "no true scotsman" argument without actually showing how I misrepresented your counterexamples. From my perspective, I addressed it directly.

You CAN'T have a free market unless the decisions on what is traded in a transaction is perpetually free (the definition of barter). That "free decision" includes what to use as a medium of exchange (if anything) in each and every trade. That is the crux of my argument. Address it directly.

Then at one time you said that fiat and commodity based currencies are the same

When people say "fiat" they usually mean "no intrinsic value." I took that to be what you meant, because in the context of your statement, you put fiat and commodity currency together as performing an identical function. In other words, in YOUR CONTEXT, you suggested that a "commodity currency" could be used as an intermediary for barter in an exclusive sense, since you grouped it with "fiat." I thus elaborated and stated explicitly that if a "commodity currency" is demanded, it is identical to both the common interpretation, and the actual definition of "fiat." I further elaborated that if it is NOT demanded, it fits perfectly into a barter system.

Context is king. Taking things out of context, intentionally or otherwise, can make for some very confusing conversations. I suggest the context was clear on my part. Perhaps you were looking for issues that weren't there?

and/or the only way a free market can exist

This by itself is a part of my argument. You have not addressed the argument I put forth, rather, you called it a "no true scotsman" argument without actually showing how I misrepresented your counterexamples. From my perspective, I addressed it directly.

You CAN'T have a free market unless the decisions on what to trade is perpetually free (the definition of barter). That "free decision" includes what to use as a medium of exchange, if anything in each and every trade. That is the crux of my argument. Address it directly.

Then at one time you said that fiat and commodity based currencies are the same

When people say "fiat" they usually mean "no intrinsic value." I took that to be what you meant, because in the context of your statement, you put fiat and commodity currency together as performing an identical function. In other words, in YOUR CONTEXT, you suggested that a "commodity currency" could be used as an intermediary for barter in an exclusive sense, since you grouped it with "fiat." I thus elaborated and stated explicitly that if a "commodity currency" is demanded, it is identical to both the common interpretation, and the actual definition of "fiat."

Context is king. Taking things out of context, intentionally or otherwise, can make for some very confusing conversations. I suggest the context was clear on my part. Perhaps you were looking for issues that weren't there?

and/or the only way a free market can exist

This by itself is a part of my argument. You have not addressed the argument I put forth, rather, you called it a "no true scotsman" argument without actually showing how I misrepresented your counterexamples. From my perspective, I addressed it directly.

You CAN'T have a free market unless the decisions on what to trade is perpetually free (the definition of barter). That "free decision" includes what to use as a medium of exchange, if anything in each and every trade. That is the crux of my argument. Address it directly.