3 ms·

I don't really see how protection against invasion helps you maintain a fiat currency. I don't think an army is either necessary or sufficient. These just seem

I don't really see how protection against invasion helps you maintain a fiat currency. I don't think an army is either necessary or sufficient. These just seem like two different issues.

PycptN2MH 8y ago
Do you have an example of a nation failing to repel an invasion yet maintaining the integrity of its currency?
- soVeryTired 8y ago
  You're shifting the goalposts. Lack of protection against invasion doesn't mean you're going to get invaded. Maintaining a standing army isn't protection against invasion either.
  - PycptN2MH 8y ago
    Do you agree that if a nation is successfully invaded its currency will lose its integrity? Do you agree that defense against invasion requires an adequate military or agreements with nations with adequate militaries? If we agree on those two claims, it seems we must agree that militarily robust sovereignty is necessary but not sufficient for the integrity of a fiat currency.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]