Thread

Agree but conflict != war. War is when people are forced by compulsion to kill other people they don't even know. This only works by large scale deception and lying and this is extremely costly. So we will see much less war.

This

> Marcus Tullius Cicero rome operated on a hard money standard and fought many wars > Statism is a cuck disease, and you seem to be spreading it – to my utter surprise nope

Inflation, which was already prevalent in the later stages of republican era when Cicero was around, eventually killed Rome in the next few hundred years. Chipping away coins, minting by mixing with other metals was common when the state needed to raise money without raising taxes on its citizens. Do you not agree that centrally planned credit expansion facilitates financing for endless wars much more effectively than hard money standard would allow? Let’s not concentrate on outliers that are statistically irrelevant but try to remain objective in the assessment we’re putting forth.

> Do you not agree that centrally planned credit expansion facilitates financing for endless wars much more effectively than hard money standard would allow? yes but it doesnt end war, just forces efficiency in conducting them especially if the target is rich in resources and bitcoin

If you ignore scale and your definition of war shrinks to the level of homicide then sure it won't end.

i don’t think i’m the one stretching definitions here

If we're using the traditional meaning of the word, are you suggesting that nation states are capable of conducting efficient warfare?

War and violence have been in a historical downtrend even before fiat and bitcoin as well. Humanity has been moving towards more peaceful conflict resolution systems for millennia. current armed conflicts, lasting decades are a consequence of fiat systems "protecting the economy" from any crisis at any cost, than war is just signed off as a crisis, instead of bad political work.

Only the past 60 years or so. And in death counts, mainly. This is largely due to a few factors, but most importantly, we don't just line up accross from each other, run and kill one another. Technology, planes, bombs/missles, drones, satellites, radio and tv feeds, and even the Geneva Convention have added to this. The number of conflicts isnt really down globally, it rises and falls of course, but the number of deaths and scale of them is. For now....

nope

You're such a loser for liking your own posts. You should be made fun of by everyone and disowned by your family.

Agree, but it does fix most problems.. Why conflict wouldn’t go to zero Even in a fair world, humans still have: Differing values. Competing visions of meaning. Identity and belief systems. Emotional responses: fear, pride, grief, love. These produce friction, not war. The key difference is this: Conflict without scarcity does not require violence. It becomes: Negotiation. Separation rather than domination. Voluntary association instead of forced unity. Think less war, more boundary-setting. The quiet truth: A world without war isn’t one without disagreement. It’s one without mechanisms that turn disagreement into mass violence. When systems stop feeding fear, scarcity, and domination; human nature doesn’t become perfect… but it becomes manageable, relational, and sane. (AI effectively helping articulate hope for a better future)

Thanks for the AI slop. Please try doing it yourself next time. Even in a bitcoin world, people will find ways to print money. Bitcoin fixes a lot of problems, but people are incredibly good at making new problems.

It does incentives better behavior.

doesnt have the same ring to it eh

Too bearish