6 ms·

That's how services work though, you can't really be self sufficient unless you're a hunter gatherer. And even then you still need to be strong enough to kill t

That's how services work though, you can't really be self sufficient unless you're a hunter gatherer. And even then you still need to be strong enough to kill the other tribes who are contesting with you for land. Imagine going to Mars and the very air you breathe is owned by your government. For me that's not an argument against going to mars, that's an argument for working harder to build a stronger, more trustworthy society.

intertextuality 8y ago
This is a false comparison. Physical cash, in your possession, cannot be frozen or revoked unless those entities stop accepting government fiat currency. It has nothing to do with being self-sufficient.
- simplyinfinity 8y ago
  But it can be stolen. Much more so than money in your bank account
  - sol_remmy 8y ago
    And that's why the ideal is a choice between cash and electronic currency. Sweden made cash (practically) illegal so now everyone has one less choice.
  - kungtotte 8y ago
    At this point in time I'm at much higher risk of my electronic money being stolen than my cash, and if someone steals my cash I know about it instantly. They can't skim my cash, can't MITM my cash transactions, they can't accept payment and then not deliver (more fraud than theft, but still) because the cash and the object being purchased are both right there. So I think you are wrong.
- pishpash 8y ago
  I think the point is even with cash in your wallet it is already a society where you have to obtain permission from unknown people to "obtain food, water, shelter, or transportation" because all of these things are delivered to you after many rounds of market exchanges which require clearing houses, escrows, the Fed, SWIFT, etc. Society has been essentially cashless for ages.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    Whats the bar for declaring foo illegal vs keeping foo from effectively keeping people from doing foo by making it impossible to pay for foo. This would be abused in the US in very short order. How it works for the swedes should be interesting.
  - intertextuality 8y ago
    Then a cashless society requires permission from multiple entities- the government, the financial providers, and the entity you want to transact with. Not at all like cash, which just requires the entity to accept it as legal tender.
    - pishpash 8y ago
      Unless the entity you're transacting with is also interested in operating in a completely cash-based economy, they will need to deposit your cash with a private bank and enter into the electronic money market. They will then worry about the source of your money by profiling you in case the risk accrues to them. Stores already do this if you pay for something with a large amount of cash and stand out as a target. That's my point that society is already essentially cashless. You're only talking about the margins of exchanges on the last hop that may be conducted in cash. Within one hop of conventional transactions it's almost certainly electronic. So I'm not sure that's a real distinction.
      - stale2002 8y ago
        You are talking about an edge case which just isn't true. It is entirely possible to live your entire life, paying with only cash, in the United States. The hardest part would likely be paying rent, but even that isn't unheard up to pay with using cash. Society is not cashless. The edge cases you are talking about rarely ever come up. If it is possible to only pay with cash, then the last hop is all that matters for you as an individual.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- pdonis 8y ago
  > Physical cash, in your possession, cannot be frozen or revoked unless those entities stop accepting government fiat currency. Which is exactly what happened in Sweden, according to the article.
api 8y ago
No. Self sufficiency is a continuum, not a boolean. Cash decentralizes permission for economic transactions.
- pishpash 8y ago
  I'm genuinely curious, what would be the rationale or incentive for a private payment processor (in a competitive payments market) to reject a legitimate transaction? The only reason I can think of would be false positive on fraud detection or system error or the such, all problems with the medium, not with centralization/permissions.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    Ever dealt with an unaccountable bureaucrat?
  - pessimizer 8y ago
    How about to please a regulator who is also an indirect competitor, or to avoid bad tweets?
  - laretluval 8y ago
    Who decides what is a legitimate transaction? If a politically undesirable group wants to accept donations, is this legitimate?
  - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
    > "what would be the rationale or incentive for a private payment processor (in a competitive payments market) to reject a legitimate transaction?" Paypal cite the following reasons that they may freeze or suspend an account (at their sole discretion): - You’ve received an abnormally large amount of money in your account that is way above your average - Someone has filed a complaint to Paypal about your business - A series of chargebacks have been placed against your account - Your website has questionable content - You are in violation of Paypal’s use policy. For example if you sell drugs or anything illegal, you may get banned - Your account information is not up to date or your account is not fully verified - Someone has logged into your Paypal account from a strange location. - Your credit score is low or something with your background history makes you a higher risk customer - They have detected fraudulent activity on your account. Some of these are reasonable. Some of them are highly questionable. Some of them are outrageously open to abuse.
JamesBarney 8y ago
The difference is there are thousands of places to go for food or shelter. But only a few to get a credit card.
james_s_tayler 8y ago
That's not an argument against going to Mars for you? Regimes that absolutist and authoritarian usually aren't the nicest of places to live.
antihero 8y ago
> Imagine going to Mars and the very air you breathe is owned by your government Don't worry, it'll be owned by Elon Musk.

intertextuality 8y ago

This is a false comparison. Physical cash, in your possession, cannot be frozen or revoked unless those entities stop accepting government fiat currency. It has nothing to do with being self-sufficient.

simplyinfinity 8y ago
But it can be stolen. Much more so than money in your bank account
- sol_remmy 8y ago
  And that's why the ideal is a choice between cash and electronic currency. Sweden made cash (practically) illegal so now everyone has one less choice.
- kungtotte 8y ago
  At this point in time I'm at much higher risk of my electronic money being stolen than my cash, and if someone steals my cash I know about it instantly. They can't skim my cash, can't MITM my cash transactions, they can't accept payment and then not deliver (more fraud than theft, but still) because the cash and the object being purchased are both right there. So I think you are wrong.
pishpash 8y ago
I think the point is even with cash in your wallet it is already a society where you have to obtain permission from unknown people to "obtain food, water, shelter, or transportation" because all of these things are delivered to you after many rounds of market exchanges which require clearing houses, escrows, the Fed, SWIFT, etc. Society has been essentially cashless for ages.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Whats the bar for declaring foo illegal vs keeping foo from effectively keeping people from doing foo by making it impossible to pay for foo. This would be abused in the US in very short order. How it works for the swedes should be interesting.
- intertextuality 8y ago
  Then a cashless society requires permission from multiple entities- the government, the financial providers, and the entity you want to transact with. Not at all like cash, which just requires the entity to accept it as legal tender.
  - pishpash 8y ago
    Unless the entity you're transacting with is also interested in operating in a completely cash-based economy, they will need to deposit your cash with a private bank and enter into the electronic money market. They will then worry about the source of your money by profiling you in case the risk accrues to them. Stores already do this if you pay for something with a large amount of cash and stand out as a target. That's my point that society is already essentially cashless. You're only talking about the margins of exchanges on the last hop that may be conducted in cash. Within one hop of conventional transactions it's almost certainly electronic. So I'm not sure that's a real distinction.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      You are talking about an edge case which just isn't true. It is entirely possible to live your entire life, paying with only cash, in the United States. The hardest part would likely be paying rent, but even that isn't unheard up to pay with using cash. Society is not cashless. The edge cases you are talking about rarely ever come up. If it is possible to only pay with cash, then the last hop is all that matters for you as an individual.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
pdonis 8y ago
> Physical cash, in your possession, cannot be frozen or revoked unless those entities stop accepting government fiat currency. Which is exactly what happened in Sweden, according to the article.

api 8y ago

No. Self sufficiency is a continuum, not a boolean. Cash decentralizes permission for economic transactions.

pishpash 8y ago
I'm genuinely curious, what would be the rationale or incentive for a private payment processor (in a competitive payments market) to reject a legitimate transaction? The only reason I can think of would be false positive on fraud detection or system error or the such, all problems with the medium, not with centralization/permissions.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Ever dealt with an unaccountable bureaucrat?
- pessimizer 8y ago
  How about to please a regulator who is also an indirect competitor, or to avoid bad tweets?
- laretluval 8y ago
  Who decides what is a legitimate transaction? If a politically undesirable group wants to accept donations, is this legitimate?
- SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
  > "what would be the rationale or incentive for a private payment processor (in a competitive payments market) to reject a legitimate transaction?" Paypal cite the following reasons that they may freeze or suspend an account (at their sole discretion): - You’ve received an abnormally large amount of money in your account that is way above your average - Someone has filed a complaint to Paypal about your business - A series of chargebacks have been placed against your account - Your website has questionable content - You are in violation of Paypal’s use policy. For example if you sell drugs or anything illegal, you may get banned - Your account information is not up to date or your account is not fully verified - Someone has logged into your Paypal account from a strange location. - Your credit score is low or something with your background history makes you a higher risk customer - They have detected fraudulent activity on your account. Some of these are reasonable. Some of them are highly questionable. Some of them are outrageously open to abuse.

JamesBarney 8y ago

The difference is there are thousands of places to go for food or shelter. But only a few to get a credit card.

james_s_tayler 8y ago

That's not an argument against going to Mars for you? Regimes that absolutist and authoritarian usually aren't the nicest of places to live.

antihero 8y ago

> Imagine going to Mars and the very air you breathe is owned by your government Don't worry, it'll be owned by Elon Musk.