3 ms·

The purpose of a military is not solely to provide continuity for a currency, it is to provide security for the interests and inhabitants of a nation. Also, re

The purpose of a military is not solely to provide continuity for a currency, it is to provide security for the interests and inhabitants of a nation. Also, regardless of any morality issues, having a military _creates value_ in a way that Bitcoin cannot. The employees of a military are paid, they spend their wages in the country's economy, they must be supplied with equipment which must be manufactured, those manufacturers & soldiers pay taxes, the enhanced security of a nation makes it less risky for investment and business growth etc etc.

natmaka 5y ago
The purpose of a military in part to provide continuity for a currency. The employees of a military are paid... by taxpayers, who are the ones creating value.
- notahacker 5y ago
  Currencies can continue quite happily without notable military power in the absence of outside threats, whilst an absence of military in the presence of invaders tends to hinder taxpayers' ability to create value regardless of what currency they were paid in before the invasion. Arguing that military exists for the purpose of protecting currency is akin to arguing that cryptographers exists for the purpose of protecting currency. Technically, that is one of the things they do [for cryptocurrencies and banks alike], but it'd be fairly ridiculous to claim that making cryptographers more useful was some sort of negative side effect of currency comparable to Bitcoin's energy use.
  - natmaka 5y ago
    If you take for granted that a classic military force (threatening, and sometimes engaged in a war of aggression) is always necessary, then a way to suppress one of its mission is useless. If you read some pretty authorized authors about it, let's say Smedley D. Butler ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket ), then having one and only one mission for the army (self-defense) may be a better way.

natmaka 5y ago

The purpose of a military in part to provide continuity for a currency. The employees of a military are paid... by taxpayers, who are the ones creating value.

notahacker 5y ago
Currencies can continue quite happily without notable military power in the absence of outside threats, whilst an absence of military in the presence of invaders tends to hinder taxpayers' ability to create value regardless of what currency they were paid in before the invasion. Arguing that military exists for the purpose of protecting currency is akin to arguing that cryptographers exists for the purpose of protecting currency. Technically, that is one of the things they do [for cryptocurrencies and banks alike], but it'd be fairly ridiculous to claim that making cryptographers more useful was some sort of negative side effect of currency comparable to Bitcoin's energy use.
- natmaka 5y ago
  If you take for granted that a classic military force (threatening, and sometimes engaged in a war of aggression) is always necessary, then a way to suppress one of its mission is useless. If you read some pretty authorized authors about it, let's say Smedley D. Butler ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket ), then having one and only one mission for the army (self-defense) may be a better way.