The problem with successful deterrents is that there is no clear connection between it and the outcome. It must be inferred from deductive reasoning.

This makes it incredibly easy for people to convince themselves of its irrelevance, or to claim “it’s just different now,” or to ascribe the success to something at the surface/social layer that is completely ineffective on its own.

In essence, the success of a deterrent sews the seeds of its ultimate removal through ignorance and simply forgetting the real nature of the world.

A good example that I think hasn’t succumbed to this yet is #Bitcoin mining - People in the future might start to say that the state was never really a threat, or that nobody cares and we all just want to work together, because it simply hasn’t been successfully attacked. When really the fact that attacking it is such a huge cost while even the degree of success is so severely limited, that it’s simply smarter to place their resources on the other parts of the battlefield (own more of it, regulate it, control the exchanges, attack developers, etc)

Just a weekend musing. Seemed interesting since we seem to have been brushing the edge of this problem with the individual right to bear arms for a while now. The people have become incredibly naive and complacent. The lack of a mass killing of the population over the past 100 years (which is actually *extremely* unique) is just kinda hand waved away like “that’s just how it is now.”

I feel that 2020 woke up a ton of people with a small preview into the horrible nature of most people and how quickly they can turn on common sense and human decency. But it’s just crazy to think that often times the *most* successful methods/technologies may very well be the *hardest* to see as successful. I wonder if the same will happen again with sound money in 100 years? 🤔