nostr:note1pjql05hq9euuxkfznqyt0aw4n4gtptrw6r76ddkqzvswaxvv9n9q7vrcnw
I don't understand the point about physical cash in the quote. Both bank account credit and physical cash are fiat, and also treated as equivalent, therefore something that can be inflated and devalued. As long as people accept fiat as payment, the state can do deficit spending and therefore have more buying power (or just power) than it should have through taxation alone. Only if people lose all trust in fiat and do not accept it anymore, the state will have to acquire whatever else people actually accept as money (i.e. bitcoin).
Discussion
The specific version of the argument being replied to here trades on bitcoin’s resistant properties — that it is harder to tax or confiscate money held in self-custody. A little history is helpful in evaluating this claim. The existence of cash — money held in self-custody — did not destroy the state. So though it may restrain state spending to some extent, the most dramatic version of that objection is likely incorrect.
As we say, furthermore, the other version of the argument requires hyperbitcoinization, an implausible scenario that in its more likely forms actually involves *enhanced* rather than limited state fiscal capacity (through early acquisitions of bitcoin). If states work to dramatically accelerate bitcoin appreciation, it will likely be to their benefit, not their harm.