3 ms·
> Anything that threatens the universal acceptability of legal tender should be viewed as a national security threat. I agree, but it depends on your point of
by a3n 8y ago
> Anything that threatens the universal acceptability of legal tender should be viewed as a national security threat.
I agree, but it depends on your point of view, I guess. Cash will itself probably be portrayed as a "threat." After all, only drug dealers and people too lazy to lift themselves up to bankable condition need cash. Right?
No-cash is an example of a middleman, or system of middlemen, locking up something for themselves that was once "free."
Water, especially bottled water, can be an example. Gentically modified seeds that produce sterile plants, in addition to some other benefit (Roundup-Ready) is another.
- bicubic 8y ago> After all, only drug dealers and people too lazy to lift themselves up to bankable condition need cash. Right? Even if we accept that line of fallacy, the sum threat of everything that could be done with illegal cash transactions is orders of magnitude smaller than the threat of a cyber attack or natural disaster disabling all exchange of money. I don't think even the staunchest anti-cash proponents could seriously advocate for building a house of cards out of our monetary system and creating a much bigger problem than what anti-cash purports to solve.
- a3n 8y ago> I don't think even the staunchest anti-cash proponents could seriously advocate for building a house of cards out of our monetary system and creating a much bigger problem than what anti-cash purports to solve. I don't think anyone who could influence that decision would hesitate for an instant, if it brought them money or power in their lifetime. You really have to apply Kissinger's model of international relations (nations can be relied on to act in their own self-interest) to individual politicians and other wielders of direct power.