> If governments were funded solely through coercion, and not through debasing currencies, it would be incredibly expensive for them to fund their blood thirsty endeavors.
In particular that means governments funded through debasement would be able to conquer governments funded through coercion, and then use the plunder to back their "debased" currencies.
Hey thanks for taking the time to comment. I don't think this is true. This is a fallacy that a lot of statists present which is that a strong totalitarian state is the only way to for an individual to be safe, as without it, they would be conquered by someone else. The reality is government is actually more of a liability than a protector as we are clearly watching right now.
Having a hard currency means that defense forces would have a limited budget that would have to be justified to the funders. Individuals who are able to access the free market will flourish over those who are in a restricted market. This allows them to fund a better defense. Then there's also the reality of making less enemies by not invading everyone.
> This is a fallacy that a lot of statists present which is that a strong totalitarian state is the only way to for an individual to be safe, as without it, they would be conquered by someone else.
You seem to be playing overly loose with the word "totalitarian".
> Having a hard currency means that defense forces would have a limited budget that would have to be justified to the funders.
This puts the defenders at a disadvantage relative to the attackers. There's a reason the American Continental Congress found it necessary to issue fiat Continental Currency.
> If governments were funded solely through coercion, and not through debasing currencies, it would be incredibly expensive for them to fund their blood thirsty endeavors.
In particular that means governments funded through debasement would be able to conquer governments funded through coercion, and then use the plunder to back their "debased" currencies.
Hey thanks for taking the time to comment. I don't think this is true. This is a fallacy that a lot of statists present which is that a strong totalitarian state is the only way to for an individual to be safe, as without it, they would be conquered by someone else. The reality is government is actually more of a liability than a protector as we are clearly watching right now.
Having a hard currency means that defense forces would have a limited budget that would have to be justified to the funders. Individuals who are able to access the free market will flourish over those who are in a restricted market. This allows them to fund a better defense. Then there's also the reality of making less enemies by not invading everyone.
> This is a fallacy that a lot of statists present which is that a strong totalitarian state is the only way to for an individual to be safe, as without it, they would be conquered by someone else.
You seem to be playing overly loose with the word "totalitarian".
> Having a hard currency means that defense forces would have a limited budget that would have to be justified to the funders.
This puts the defenders at a disadvantage relative to the attackers. There's a reason the American Continental Congress found it necessary to issue fiat Continental Currency.