4 ms·
The 'cashless society' is starting to show another dark side here in Sweden in that several banks have started to close accounts for organisations [1] which don
by Yetanfou 9y ago
The 'cashless society' is starting to show another dark side here in Sweden in that several banks have started to close accounts for organisations [1] which don't "agree to the bank's ethical foundation" (the Swedish word is "Värdegrund" [2]). While there still are banks willing to take these organisations as customers this is a development in the wrong direction. It does not matter whether you agree with the "ethical foundation" these "banned" organisations have, the important fact is that they operate within the bounds of the law of the land. This used to be the deciding factor to separate 'good' from 'bad', legal from illegal, allowed from disallowed. Cash does not care about politics, it is - by law - as valid for a communist as it is for a priest or a libertarian. This currently does not go for the services provided by banks to enable transactions in a cashless society as can be seen by the Swedish example; there is no compulsion for those banks to take up anyone or any organisation as a customer. In a polarised society like Sweden where the pressure to abide by the "ethical foundation" is very strong this leads to extra-judicial sentences on those who do not abide by or agree to those ethical foundations.
Had those organisations been shunned because of their stance on, say, religion, those banks would be accused of discrimination. Discrimination based on political orientation however is currently not protected by law. If the "cashless society" is to succeed this probably will have to change, doing anything else will only lead to even more segregation where "left-wing" financial institutions refuse to do business with "right-wing" customers.
In short, in a land ruled by law it is the law which should be the boundary between what is allowed and disallowed. As long as an individual or an organisations abides by the law their ideological standpoint should be irrelevant to financial service companies.
[1] http://www.friatider.se/nordea-st-nger-ner-nationalisters-konton-kan-ej-motivera-varf-r-och-l-gger-p-luren http://www.friatider.se/nordea-st-nger-ner-nationalisters-ko...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A4rdegrund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A4rdegrund
- fernandopj 9y agoIf only there was a way for society to go cashless, but not to rely on central authorities to decide who has money and who doesn't... Oh, wait. Joke aside, you just described why blockchain ideologists hope the future will be a global, decentralized system. So no one can unilaterally deny access to your money.
- tuna-piano 9y agoCorrect me if I’m wrong, but by design block chain is also non-anonymous. So if you want to, say, give money to Donald Trump, everyone could know you gave money to Donald Trump.