12 ms·

I am advocating hard monetary policy (ala a gold standard, a bitcoin standard) as a method for disincentivizing war. When you cannot replace the capital spent

I am advocating hard monetary policy (ala a gold standard, a bitcoin standard) as a method for disincentivizing war. When you cannot replace the capital spent on war via inflation, war is less likely to occur. I acknowledge this is a fringe philosophy, but time will tell.

qwytw 5y ago
> but time will tell Well the gold (or silver) standard had been a thing for thousands of years and I don't think there is much empirical evidence to suggest that a country's inability to control it's monetary policy somehow inherently disincentivizes it's government from waging wars. Talking about inflation specifically, there was relatively little of it during both WW1 and WW2 since all countries implemented price controls and rationing and pretty much nationalized all the available production capacity.
- rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
  There was the debasement of the currency of the Roman Empire, which lead to its failure. This was done for reasons of waging war. I am arguing that if you remove the ability for a state to create money (or at least debase it), it removes the ability for it to wage war. Continuous war requires continuous capital to wage. If this continuity is ended, wars end.
  - qwytw 5y ago
    Then you're arguing for abolishing the state in general. Because otherwise individuals would have no way of preventing the state from either taking away their non-inflationary money/coins or banning which would result in significant reduction it's value. > There was the debasement of the currency of the Roman Empire, War was the reason why Roman empire existed in the first place. In fact some argue that the Roman economy was only sustainable as long as Rome continued conquering new lands, enslaving their populations and taking away their property. As soon as the empire stopped expanding they were long able to maintain their army. Arguably, without debasement the collapse might have happened sooner they would have ran out of gold to pay their soldiers anyway.
    - qwytw 5y ago
      Prior to the revolution of 1789 the French state was pretty much in a permanent state of bankruptcy for the past several hundreds of years (and unlike the Romans they couldn't really debase their currency). Did that prevent them from waging wars?
    - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
      Not the state in general, just the ability to create money. The state can still raise funds via taxation, but they need to be more careful in how it is spent, as it cannot be magic'd into existence.
      - qwytw 5y ago
        And how would you enforce this if the state continues to have the monopoly on violence? Who would prevent it from banning doing the same thing Roosevelt did in 1933 (banning the private ownership of gold) (of course for crypto currencies they would ban the usage and ownership) or suspending the free market itself like in 1941?
        rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
        And that is what is so wonderful about Satoshis great invention. The state has far less power over Mathematics, Cryptography and Game Theory. A gun is useless against ECDSA. A government cannot stop a person holding, saving, spending or transacting in bitcoin. As long as there is a channel, anywhere in the universe that allows submission of valid, signed transactions to peers, the state cannot stop it.
        qwytw 5y ago
        Sure it can, it can just ban crypto currencies and start fining all businesses which accept them and/or allow exchanging them for fiat currencies. While technically people still be able to transfer them I'm not sure how useful that would be in practical terms.

qwytw 5y ago

> but time will tell Well the gold (or silver) standard had been a thing for thousands of years and I don't think there is much empirical evidence to suggest that a country's inability to control it's monetary policy somehow inherently disincentivizes it's government from waging wars. Talking about inflation specifically, there was relatively little of it during both WW1 and WW2 since all countries implemented price controls and rationing and pretty much nationalized all the available production capacity.

rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
There was the debasement of the currency of the Roman Empire, which lead to its failure. This was done for reasons of waging war. I am arguing that if you remove the ability for a state to create money (or at least debase it), it removes the ability for it to wage war. Continuous war requires continuous capital to wage. If this continuity is ended, wars end.
- qwytw 5y ago
  Then you're arguing for abolishing the state in general. Because otherwise individuals would have no way of preventing the state from either taking away their non-inflationary money/coins or banning which would result in significant reduction it's value. > There was the debasement of the currency of the Roman Empire, War was the reason why Roman empire existed in the first place. In fact some argue that the Roman economy was only sustainable as long as Rome continued conquering new lands, enslaving their populations and taking away their property. As soon as the empire stopped expanding they were long able to maintain their army. Arguably, without debasement the collapse might have happened sooner they would have ran out of gold to pay their soldiers anyway.
  - qwytw 5y ago
    Prior to the revolution of 1789 the French state was pretty much in a permanent state of bankruptcy for the past several hundreds of years (and unlike the Romans they couldn't really debase their currency). Did that prevent them from waging wars?
  - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
    Not the state in general, just the ability to create money. The state can still raise funds via taxation, but they need to be more careful in how it is spent, as it cannot be magic'd into existence.
    - qwytw 5y ago
      And how would you enforce this if the state continues to have the monopoly on violence? Who would prevent it from banning doing the same thing Roosevelt did in 1933 (banning the private ownership of gold) (of course for crypto currencies they would ban the usage and ownership) or suspending the free market itself like in 1941?
      - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
        And that is what is so wonderful about Satoshis great invention. The state has far less power over Mathematics, Cryptography and Game Theory. A gun is useless against ECDSA. A government cannot stop a person holding, saving, spending or transacting in bitcoin. As long as there is a channel, anywhere in the universe that allows submission of valid, signed transactions to peers, the state cannot stop it.
        qwytw 5y ago
        Sure it can, it can just ban crypto currencies and start fining all businesses which accept them and/or allow exchanging them for fiat currencies. While technically people still be able to transfer them I'm not sure how useful that would be in practical terms.