2 ms·

> American libertarians are fine living with a $10k limit, Aussie ones will be too. Are they? I'm not even a libertarian and I'm not pleased with the $10k limi

> American libertarians are fine living with a $10k limit, Aussie ones will be too. Are they? I'm not even a libertarian and I'm not pleased with the $10k limit.

ajross 7y ago
Out of genuine curiosity, on which $10k+ transactions is the government reporting requirement (which strictly is of your bank and not you) a hardship or privacy concern of yours? I mean, people make embarassing transactions all the time, and it virtually never leaks. Even Trump's Daniels payoff (as juicy a story as you could possibly imagine) didn't show up as a leak from a bank or the government. In practice, this just hasn't been the privacy concern everyone thinks it is.
- hndamien 7y ago
  You lack privacy from the bank.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Knowledge is power. The more knowledge a government has about individuals, the more power it has over them. I believe that the right to privacy is a prerequisite to protecting many of the other rights guaranteed by the bill of rights, and indeed to protecting many unalienable human rights. This is not hypothetical. The US government seizes or freezes people's assets all the time through civil forfeiture[1], injunction[2], or prejudgment writ of attachment[3]. In other countries, asset freezing[4] can have even more severe scope. Not only can these tools be used to violate someone's right to freedom from unwarranted search and seizure (4th Amendment), but it can have implications for their right to due process and counsel (5th and 6th Amendment), as it impacts their ability to pay for their defense. And in a direct way, it may be construed as a violation of the right to freedom from excessive bail (8th Amendment) as it acts as a form of bail. Broadly interpreted, religion, speech and press (1st Amendment) and arms (2nd Amendment) all cost money, so seizing assets can affect these as well, and seizing assets can be used as an intimidation tactic to prevent free exercise of these rights. Privacy with regards to personal finances is a fundamental protection against improper seizure of assets. The government can't seize assets they don't know you have. [1] https://priceonomics.com/how-police-officers-seize-cash-from-innocent/ https://priceonomics.com/how-police-officers-seize-cash-from... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudgment_writ_of_attachment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudgment_writ_of_attachment [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_freezing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_freezing

> American libertarians are fine living with a $10k limit, Aussie ones will be too. Are they? I'm not even a libertarian and I'm not pleased with the $10k limit.

ajross 7y ago

Out of genuine curiosity, on which $10k+ transactions is the government reporting requirement (which strictly is of your bank and not you) a hardship or privacy concern of yours? I mean, people make embarassing transactions all the time, and it virtually never leaks. Even Trump's Daniels payoff (as juicy a story as you could possibly imagine) didn't show up as a leak from a bank or the government. In practice, this just hasn't been the privacy concern everyone thinks it is.

hndamien 7y ago
You lack privacy from the bank.
kerkeslager 7y ago
Knowledge is power. The more knowledge a government has about individuals, the more power it has over them. I believe that the right to privacy is a prerequisite to protecting many of the other rights guaranteed by the bill of rights, and indeed to protecting many unalienable human rights. This is not hypothetical. The US government seizes or freezes people's assets all the time through civil forfeiture[1], injunction[2], or prejudgment writ of attachment[3]. In other countries, asset freezing[4] can have even more severe scope. Not only can these tools be used to violate someone's right to freedom from unwarranted search and seizure (4th Amendment), but it can have implications for their right to due process and counsel (5th and 6th Amendment), as it impacts their ability to pay for their defense. And in a direct way, it may be construed as a violation of the right to freedom from excessive bail (8th Amendment) as it acts as a form of bail. Broadly interpreted, religion, speech and press (1st Amendment) and arms (2nd Amendment) all cost money, so seizing assets can affect these as well, and seizing assets can be used as an intimidation tactic to prevent free exercise of these rights. Privacy with regards to personal finances is a fundamental protection against improper seizure of assets. The government can't seize assets they don't know you have. [1] https://priceonomics.com/how-police-officers-seize-cash-from-innocent/ https://priceonomics.com/how-police-officers-seize-cash-from... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudgment_writ_of_attachment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudgment_writ_of_attachment [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_freezing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_freezing