"My point was simply that inflation is not theft"
If I hide away $1,000 AUD for 10 years under the mattress, I'll get it out and discover that it only purchases something like 60 - 70% of what it used to. The ultimate cause of such a reality was the inflation of the money supply (Monetary inflation). I don't get how you don't get 2 + 2 = 4.
"I just said that if there were to be no inflation then that would imply that the market is more constrained with regards to the flexibility of prices of goods and services in response to changes in demand and supply. This is largely why Australia and other economies have a target of around 2 - 4%."
If this is your main argument then, I guess you have no problem with -2 to -4%? Micro-deflation. You seem to be concerned with price inflation remaining the same for a good (Basically an impossibility in any free market over extended periods of time) but then only advocate for +2% to +4% average. The only argument you've provided so far for your support of +2% to +4% is approval to authority ('Australia and other economies', 'economists around the world'. Appeal to authority being an emotional appeal and therefore propaganda) and 'flexibility of price' (Meaning that by your stated principles, -2% to -4% is OK too). I'm assuming that both you and I are in agreement though that both hyper-inflation or hyper-deflation are bad for the economy (Quite obviously destroy the 'unit of account' money attribute).
"As I said, the government doesn't actually control inflation, consumers do."
Exactly. Unless all of the consumers are coerced to use the same monetary good by a monopoly controlling the monetary market (The state). In that case, consumers have direct control of price inflation, but are coerced by the state that is not influenced by the market (Through control of monetary inflation, entering price inflation via the cantillon effect). All of the state's subsequent actions (Holding monopoly of violence) are in effect, numb to the price signalling of the market that operates under that monetary good.
"I'm not responding to you anymore as it's clear you're just looking to argue, and I really can't be bothered with that."
If you like echo chambers without debate, that's cool. I don't see how that stimulates critical thinking though. You have completely misunderstood my intentions. I do not do this to merely 'argue'. Years ago, I posted out of a desire to not only express my opinions of Bitcoin, but advocate for it. Given Bitcoin's ability to easily subvert the monopoly of violence by the state (Bitcoin is merely a protocol/language at its core, and therefore would be roughly equally difficult to ban as banning Bittorent or the Spanish language globally), with harder money attributes than that given by the monopoly, it is in no need of my services of advocacy. Rather, I merely do this as an expression or art and to further increase my knowledge and critique.
