5 ms·

The premise of “no fiat, less war” is just asserted without any proof, and is actually quite ahistorical.

by village-idiot 8y ago

keymone 8y ago
i never said nor implied "no fiat, less war".
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Now you’re just dodging the question. Prove your assertion that a country on bitcoin would need a smaller army. I’ll wait. Edit: saying that the economy would be deflationary and thus couldn’t afford a large army would be a hilarious way to go.
  - keymone 8y ago
    fiat's value is, at least partially, backed by an army that can defend/assert it. not having fiat eliminates the need for as much army.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      There’s two issues here. First, the logic doesn’t work. Let “has fiat currency” be A, and “has a large army” be B. You’re asserting “If A then B; therefore if not A then not B”. This is a formal logic error called “denying the antecedent”, which means the argument is invalid. (You also don’t support A well, but that’s a side point because your logical assertion doesn’t work). Second, there are plenty of examples of rich fiat countries with small armies (Switzerland, 0.7% GDP defense spending) and non-fiat countries with massive army expenditures (Roman Empire, harder to calculate due to history and lower productivity, but at least 2.5% GDP and 80% of the entire government budget). The presence of both indicates that the form of currency a country uses is secondary to other intangible aspects when it comes to the formation and maintenance of large armies.
      - keymone 8y ago
        > Let “has fiat currency” be A, and “has a large army” be B. You’re asserting “If A then B; therefore if not A then not B”. those are incorrect presumptions and therefore incorrect conclusion. A is "has fiat currency", B is "needs an army or other means to maintain fiat value". of course army is not the only thing, but it's one of the things in many of the countries. whatever other things other countries have to assert fiat value - those too consume some energy-equivalent of resources. army is just the most obvious and easy to understand example. and yes, there are also feedback loops, there is no strict causal relationship between the components of this system, which is yet another reason why you can't make these energy consumption comparisons without being intellectually dishonest.
        village-idiot 8y ago
        You can change the definition of B all you want, it's still a formal fallacy, meaning the argument is literally worthless. You have to structure a very different argument from what you've shown to assert that bitcoin would reduce national military expenditures, not just tweak the details.
        keymone 8y ago
        it's not about definition of A and B, it's about structure of the sentence. if maintaining fiat value requires spending resources then not having to maintain fiat value means there is no need to spend resources to maintain fiat value. it's really a truism, there is no need to do this dance of yours with logic and fallacies unless you are trying to confuse people and/or push some agenda.
        village-idiot 8y ago
        > it's not about definition of A and B, it's about structure of the sentence I agree! And the structure of the argument is fundamentally invalid. > there is no need to do this dance of yours with logic and fallacies ... Oh, I guess we don't agree. > it's really a truism "I don't have an argument, but I believe it very strongly". > you are trying to confuse people and/or push some agenda Accusing those who disagree with you of pushing an "agenda" is both a bad argument and bad etiquette. Stop.
    - jcranmer 8y ago
      Explain the value of the Somali shilling, then.
andirk 8y ago
I love the idea of "no fiat, less war". I also love the idea of "less war". I don't believe war is a natural human occurrence but instead usually done for gaining fiat. However, I do believe that trading is quite natural and our current fiat implementation often simplifies trade. So maybe a borderless fiat simplifies it even more.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Good luck explaining Rome then. No fiat, lots and lots of war.

The premise of “no fiat, less war” is just asserted without any proof, and is actually quite ahistorical.

keymone 8y ago

i never said nor implied "no fiat, less war".

village-idiot 8y ago
Now you’re just dodging the question. Prove your assertion that a country on bitcoin would need a smaller army. I’ll wait. Edit: saying that the economy would be deflationary and thus couldn’t afford a large army would be a hilarious way to go.
- keymone 8y ago
  fiat's value is, at least partially, backed by an army that can defend/assert it. not having fiat eliminates the need for as much army.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    There’s two issues here. First, the logic doesn’t work. Let “has fiat currency” be A, and “has a large army” be B. You’re asserting “If A then B; therefore if not A then not B”. This is a formal logic error called “denying the antecedent”, which means the argument is invalid. (You also don’t support A well, but that’s a side point because your logical assertion doesn’t work). Second, there are plenty of examples of rich fiat countries with small armies (Switzerland, 0.7% GDP defense spending) and non-fiat countries with massive army expenditures (Roman Empire, harder to calculate due to history and lower productivity, but at least 2.5% GDP and 80% of the entire government budget). The presence of both indicates that the form of currency a country uses is secondary to other intangible aspects when it comes to the formation and maintenance of large armies.
    - keymone 8y ago
      > Let “has fiat currency” be A, and “has a large army” be B. You’re asserting “If A then B; therefore if not A then not B”. those are incorrect presumptions and therefore incorrect conclusion. A is "has fiat currency", B is "needs an army or other means to maintain fiat value". of course army is not the only thing, but it's one of the things in many of the countries. whatever other things other countries have to assert fiat value - those too consume some energy-equivalent of resources. army is just the most obvious and easy to understand example. and yes, there are also feedback loops, there is no strict causal relationship between the components of this system, which is yet another reason why you can't make these energy consumption comparisons without being intellectually dishonest.
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        You can change the definition of B all you want, it's still a formal fallacy, meaning the argument is literally worthless. You have to structure a very different argument from what you've shown to assert that bitcoin would reduce national military expenditures, not just tweak the details.
        keymone 8y ago
        it's not about definition of A and B, it's about structure of the sentence. if maintaining fiat value requires spending resources then not having to maintain fiat value means there is no need to spend resources to maintain fiat value. it's really a truism, there is no need to do this dance of yours with logic and fallacies unless you are trying to confuse people and/or push some agenda.
        village-idiot 8y ago
        > it's not about definition of A and B, it's about structure of the sentence I agree! And the structure of the argument is fundamentally invalid. > there is no need to do this dance of yours with logic and fallacies ... Oh, I guess we don't agree. > it's really a truism "I don't have an argument, but I believe it very strongly". > you are trying to confuse people and/or push some agenda Accusing those who disagree with you of pushing an "agenda" is both a bad argument and bad etiquette. Stop.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    Explain the value of the Somali shilling, then.

andirk 8y ago

I love the idea of "no fiat, less war". I also love the idea of "less war". I don't believe war is a natural human occurrence but instead usually done for gaining fiat. However, I do believe that trading is quite natural and our current fiat implementation often simplifies trade. So maybe a borderless fiat simplifies it even more.

village-idiot 8y ago
Good luck explaining Rome then. No fiat, lots and lots of war.