|
|
|
|
|
by ur-whale
1638 days ago
|
|
The problem with statist thinking like this is that it never ever takes into account what happens when the state fails. This is a typical way of looking at the world from people who were lucky enough to grow up in a society that sort of works, unfortunately not the norm for a large fraction of the human race. I suspect that - had you lived under German occupation in 39-45 - you would have a very different take on things. |
|
So much so, that your hard currency is kind of a rounding error in this situation.
If the state loses its monopoly on violence, well, someone can just beat you until you're dead or you give up your private keys. Either one should be fine.
I don't optimize my life for some hypothetical dystopian failed state situation in any other aspect of my life. I don't have a fallout shelter in my back yard. I don't have bricks of gold. I don't have Kalashnikovs. I don't have bullets. I don't keep a stash of canned peaches. I don't have gas masks or iodine pills. This isn't Metro Exodus. It's massively inefficient to plan for such a situation in any aspect of my life.
The risk-reward profile is just flat out nuts. I can't know ahead of time beyond these key resources what I'd actually need. And I know I can't count on the internet being up for me to trade spreadsheet cells for gasoline in the apocalypse - nor can I count on good actors to have 51% control of the network.
Why on earth would we force our currency to operate as though there was a German occupation at all times, and take on all the massive inefficiency that goes along with it? Especially when its climate implications are pushing us towards this dystopian future.