Well the fact that a corrupt government made it illegal to hold gold during an era where wealth confiscation was conducted in plain sight- and thus eliminating 50 years of data from the modern record - is more of a argument to hold some than not ,some would say.
Why is the government's capability to easily confiscate an asset (and precedent for having done so in the past) an argument for owning that asset?
If anything it seems like that history should be an argument against putting too much of your wealth where previous precedent for government seizure exists.
Taxes and inflation perform the same function now in an elastic monetary system.
