Well, when the U.S. collapses from hyperinflation in the next few years, we aren't going to big government after that. Alright, I see you guys disagree with me on the standing army and you make some good points, but there is too much eminent domain with a standing army plus it creates too many people working at the expense of the tax-payer. Anyway, worse than a standing army at home, is the fact that we spend most of our defense tax dollars on having our standing army not at home. How about we reach a compromise and don't pay the standing army (except for treating their injuries and maybe food, clothing, and shelter), don't let the standing army outside of these United States, and limit the size of it during peacetime?
That's not so bad.
Also, how about the denationalization of currency? Currency has always been nationalized and things have not been good with having nationalization of currency. The market will determine the value of precious metals, you can have digital gold accounts, checking accounts, and then the government can't debase it to inflate the economy. Kings and emperors used to debase it and it caused disaster. When they inflated, the peasants got poorer, and they were peasants because the government was too powerful to begin with.
That's not so bad.
Also, how about the denationalization of currency? Currency has always been nationalized and things have not been good with having nationalization of currency. The market will determine the value of precious metals, you can have digital gold accounts, checking accounts, and then the government can't debase it to inflate the economy. Kings and emperors used to debase it and it caused disaster. When they inflated, the peasants got poorer, and they were peasants because the government was too powerful to begin with.
Facebook
Twitter