3 ms·
That's why people say it reduces "governmental power", not "law enforcement power". The "government" includes the organization that issues the fiat currency tha
by avar 13y ago
That's why people say it reduces "governmental power", not "law enforcement power". The "government" includes the organization that issues the fiat currency that you use.
You could argue that the increase in law enforcement power would offset the decrease in power from not being able to issue fiat currency, but that would mostly be a silly line of argument to pursue.
- crygin 13y agoNot least because governmental power does not derive from the ability to issue fiat currency; it derives from a legal (or socially accepted) monopoly on force. Failure of a sanctioned fiat currency could reduce governmental legitimacy, but law enforcement is the backbone of governmental power.
- avar 13y agoPartly yes, but being able to control the macro economy is arguably a much greater power in a western state than the monopoly on coercive force. Force mostly has to be individually applied, and you can only take it so far before you have massive pushback in the form of civil unrest. Printing money, to pick a simple example, is much more effective and can be done across the economy as a whole. Could you imagine police forces breaking into everyone's home and taking half their cash in a matter of days? It's unthinkable that that would happen for logistical reasons alone. But that's what we've effectively seen some modern western governments do just recently by rapidly deflating their currencies. Abolishing fiat currency would take away that power, and make no mistake it is an immense power. It's the power to shape entire economies at the stroke of a pen.
- sliverstorm 13y agoThe original question was: Why would law enforcement be eager to support a technology which...