I guess it depend on whether you believe democracy is a valid way to agree on societal issues.
Wrong again. Fiat currency is a currency imposed by force. That is its definition. What you are arguing now is the morality of the use of force, but whatever your opinion on this moral issue, your statement saying that fiat currency can appear without force is still wrong.
Quote
Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists reject democracy as violence, and I don't want to open that old debate. The use of a stable fiat currency sure does seem to correlate well with being a successful society, and in the end people will vote with their feet - and that too is a form of democracy.
Its the other way around. Fiat currency (and also democracy) always happens at the end of civilizations. And sadly, history shows that societies almost never scape from the collapse that fiat currency brings about. Once the inflationary forces are in motion its very hard to scape. The collapse can last decades or even centuries in the case of something as big as the Roman empire, but almost never there is a way back.
Quote
I hear Somalis put good price and gold these days 
Well, Somalies are better off by a big difference in anarchy than with the previous socialist government they had. And you can check this with the data from the ONU and other international organizations.
Taxation is a process, not an event. If the govt. wants 50% of the potatoes you produce at your ranch, they will get it, and it makes absolutely no difference if those potatoes cost 1 govt monetary unit or 1 billion. Sure, taken in isolation, the act of you selling potatoes and paying tax will create demand. But since throughout history the supply of govt money was always higher than the demand, we can safely conclude that the tax process, the process by which govt derives wealth from the productive society, does not give value to tax money. That's why I'm saying "being acceptable for tax" is an incomplete explanation for the value.
You are trying to justify the unjustificable. Government spending creates supply. Government taxation creates demand. Then there is a process with relations and consequences, as you say, but it does not change the fact that government spending creates supply and government taxation creates demand.