[wizeman]

> The power of a major government behind a currency is like the framing of a building.

Only if the frame were able to make decisions that devalue or collapse the building without anyone being able to stop it (and quite a few "frames" have done that). As you can see, not a good analogy.

> A building with a frame can collapse, but the odds are much worse if you don't have one.

Well, actually the "frame" is the cause of the collapse. A "building" without the "frame" wouldn't actually collapse due to hyperinflation.

Although I'm not sure what "being backed by the military" has anything to do with what you said. It's not like the military is going to do something when a currency is devalued by a government or when it collapses.

[Dylan16807]

Uh, plenty of currencies not tied to governments have collapsed.

And the military is part of keeping the country going and enforcing the currency as legal tender.

[wizeman]

> Uh, plenty of currencies not tied to governments have collapsed.

Widely used currencies? Which ones?

> And the military is part of keeping the country going and enforcing the currency as legal tender.

No, actually it isn't. The courts and law enforcement are. And legal tender doesn't mean that a citizen or company has to accept the currency (unless it's for a payment of a debt, and even then there are several restrictions).

Which is why even if we're both in the US, I could sell you something for bitcoins (or EUR or whatever) and neither the military, nor the courts nor law enforcement would do anything to enforce that I sell you things for the USD instead.

So saying that a currency is "backed by the military" means nothing.