I think you may be missing a vital point here, Jardine K. Jardine.

>>However the question is, what make the "genuine article" of "money", whose value comes from the authority of the stamp thereon, any more genuine, than the readiness and ability of the Commonwealth's monopoly forces, to do just that?<<

The "Commonwealth's monopoly forces" have very little to do with it, when it comes to exchanging TV sets for pieces of paper, or even computer transactions that indirectly refer to those pieces of paper.

The "forces" are with the retailer, to ether accept or reject the pieces of paper/computer transaction as they see fit.

Trust (in the system that supports it) is at the epicentre of that value exchange, and all related value exchanges. When trust in the instrument fails (e.g. Germany 1923, Greece 1944, Zimbabwe passim) the government is swept along with the tide. Only through a form of linguistic sleight-of-hand, when they decide to announce that e.g. "1 new drachma equals 50,000,000,000 old drachmai" (Greece 1944) can the panic subside a little.

Interesting to note that when Hungary introduced the forint in 1946, the total foreign exchange value of all the Hungarian banknotes in circulation was one tenth of one US cent. The country's GDP presently stands at close to 45 trillion forints, or US$200 billion. The actual "value" of an economy maintains only an indirect relationship with the number of pieces of paper, and what is written on them.

The value of money does not come, as you suggest, "from the authority of the stamp thereon", but from the willingness of the people to use it. If the Jardine dollar were backed by a reputable undertaking in which the public had sufficient trust (which comes down to its being freely exchangeable) it would surely be accepted at Harvey Norman. After all, three commercial enterprises in Scotland still issue their own banknotes today, and these are acknowledged as having a specific value, even though they are not legal tender.

Counterfeiting however - whether the forint, Drachma or Jardine dollar - remains fraudulent, and is a criminal offence.

And so what role do the legal tender laws play in this do you think?

I think you will find that the Currency Act is the relevant legislation, Jardine K. Jardine.

>>...what role do the legal tender laws play in this do you think?<<

Section 9 of the Currency Act of 1965 appears to cover your situation:

"Subject to this section, every sale, every bill of exchange or promissory note, every security for money, and every other contract, agreement, deed, instrument, transaction, dealing, matter or thing relating to money, or involving the payment of, or a liability to pay, money, that is made, executed, entered into or done, shall, unless it is made, executed, entered into or done according to the currency of some country other than Australia, be made, executed, entered into or done according to the currency of Australia provided for by this Act."

The example that illustrates how this will affect your Jardine dollar is that of the Scottish Banks, whose notes do not qualify as legal tender, but are instead promissory notes. This allows them to conform to the above (our system is pretty similar to the UK on this topic) in that they are denominated in the currency of the United Kingdom. Your Jardine dollar could follow this format, i.e. use the Aussie dollar as its denomination, just so long as it doesn't represent itself as legal tender.

Alternatively, you could set up the Commonwealth of Jardinistan as a foreign country, in which case the Jardine dollar would be a foreign currency, leaving you free to establish a separate exchange rate against the Aussie.

Thank you for that reference.

So given that my Jardine dollars must be denominated in Commonwealth dollars, why is it true to say:
"The "Commonwealth's monopoly forces" have very little to do with it, when it comes to exchanging TV sets for pieces of paper, or even computer transactions that indirectly refer to those pieces of paper."?

And why is it true to say:
"The value of money does not come, as you suggest, "from the authority of the stamp thereon", but from the willingness of the people to use it. "
given that, even if the people were not willing to use it, they are not free to use their preferred money?

Although in general it's true that the value of something comes from the subjective preferences of the people buying or selling it, my point is that in the case of fiat money, the State forcibly overrides what people would value more, and substitutes what people value less, on pain of imprisonment if you don't agree.

By this means it is able to foist its inferior money on the populace, at the same time as rip them off through constantly inflating it. If it were true that the people really preferred it, there would be no need for Section 9 of the Currency Act, would there?

I preferred the good old days when all someone needed to know about money was that they didn't have enough.

If money comprehension is complicated locally, Pericles, it is more so internationally as you exampled (last week I heard commenters on BBC radio complaining because London taxi drivers refuse to accept Scottish pounds).

Before the GFC I was advised not to be caught holding Vietnamese dong.

But that is another story...

We know Hayek hoped, "The public will have to learn to select among a variety of monies, and to choose those which are good." but it sounds like an unnecessarily inefficient method of buying a loaf of bread.

One test would be that my money was 'good' for any purpose to which I wished it to apply.

I understand the currency concept of a note having a notional extrinsic value and all that, but with Jardine dollars (or Jardinieres as I think they should be called to distinguish them from inferior fiat money) I am still not clear whether they work like an IOU.

Would it be worth or is it not worth the paper it's printed on? How can I be confident, whatever its amount, in case it is worthmore or worthless?

This is critical to any economic calculation I wish to undertake. If there isn't a lowest common denominated currency how would I know?

You only selected one of the alternatives, Jardine K. Jardine. And even that does not tell the whole story.

>>So given that my Jardine dollars must be denominated in Commonwealth dollars...<<

Despite the "face value" implications of being linked to the Australian dollar, there is no reason on earth why those folk who choose to use the Jardine dollar as currency shouldn't value it differently. Witness the many countries who operate an official exchange rate for currency bought on the open market, but understand that there is a different rate for "off-market" transactions.

You would not be able to use the banking system itself as an exchange medium, of course, but apart from that you are completely free to operate as you see fit. Perhaps you should also take a look at Bitcoin, as further inspiration for your alternative currency ambitions.

It is a little disappointing too, that you didn't consider the establishment of your own country as an option. Australia is famous for hosting a number micronations within its borders, which operate under their own government. Some indeed issue their own banknotes and coins - the Principality of Hutt River being the most familiar.

I can well understand why taking this option might be a difficult step for you to consider, not least for the ridicule you would receive from friends and acquaintances. But to take the stand that you do...

>>...my point is that in the case of fiat money, the State forcibly overrides what people would value more, and substitutes what people value less, on pain of imprisonment if you don't agree<<

...really ought to require one or two small sacrifices, over and above the ability to fulminate on a public forum. Actions speak far louder than words, after all, so if the situation genuinely disturbs you, and there are clear alternatives, as I have outlined, you really should consider them.