Fusillo, The Nominalistic Principle and Fiat Money: Law as a Crutch for the Monetary Swindle

by Stephan Kinsella on May 8, 2026

Alessandro Fusillo, “The Nominalistic Principle and Fiat Money: Law as a Crutch for the Monetary Swindle,” Property and Freedom Journal (May 8, 2026)

In matters of pecuniary obligations, the prevailing civil-law doctrine adheres to the principle of nominalism. In essence, the principle states that—beyond mechanisms protecting the creditor from the loss of purchasing power of money (agreed interest rates, indexation clauses tied to inflation, etc.)—the performance of an obligation follows the Roman-law principle of tantundem eiusdem generis: the obligation to pay 1,000 dollars on a given date is satisfied, and the debtor accordingly extinguishes the obligation, by paying the agreed amount on the agreed date, irrespective of the fact that, in the meantime, the value (purchasing power) of the sum in question may have been eroded and may no longer correspond to its original value.

Legal doctrine generally subscribes—rather uncritically—to the state-chartalist theory of money, well represented by the writings of Knapp, Mann and Ascarelli.² From this perspective, what confers the character of money on a given thing (metal, pieces of paper printed with colored designs, or anything else) is the command of the State. Money is such because there is a law that defines it as legal tender. The source of the monetary nature of a thing is therefore the legislative power of the State as the ultimate decision-maker. And this, in turn, also finds expression in monetary sovereignty.