To say that a completely different but unproven system works better is a very tough point to defend.
Why can't our government(or any government for that matter) print their own money and issue it to its people, which is then freed from the private central bank's interest? Instead, we allow the banking industry to self-regulate and it in turn does what's in its self-interest.
I've heard historians and anti-neoclassic-economists refer back to the success of Tally Sticks(1100 - 1854), Colonial Script(1764 –– 1776), and Roman currency before they switched to a gold standard. But, I'm not an authority on this and sincerely would appreciate any literature that contradicts it.
The only modern example would be cyprtocurrency, and the verdict is still out on that. Hell, even if more states and nations moved to North Dakota's banking approach we'd be better off.
I don't have all the answers, but I know humans can do better and it starts with the average-person continually investing time to educate themselves about monetary policies and the history of currencies.
The current monetary system has feed global wars, imperialism and possibly the worst financial inequality in mankind's history. Unless you're a banker or in the financial industry, I don't understand why you wouldn't want to try something new?
All the examples you mention don't hold up. Not even in their own time, much less in a modern time where we need private finance.
"Cryptocurrency" is a new kind of knee-jerk reaction to "everything perceived to be wrong with money". There's a reason why conspiracy nuts flock to cryptocurrencies in droves. Turns out that ordinary people get screwed over with bitcoins far more easily than with the "evil" fiat currencies. Also there is no reason why you can't have a sort of reserve-banking, or even monetary expansion in a bitcoin-based economy. They just don't do it yet, because Bitcoins at the present moment have negligible impact on the real economy (which might change).
