3 ms·

Obviously laws will have to be changed to support a cashless economy. You're attacking a strawman by assuming that a cashless economy must exclude people becaus

Obviously laws will have to be changed to support a cashless economy. You're attacking a strawman by assuming that a cashless economy must exclude people because of contradictory laws like the UK one you mentioned.

jlokier 7y ago
I don't think it's a strawman, because I think laws like the UK one come from a motivation or principle which is not going away. That is: to make laws that sound appealing to enough of the population, which make life ruinously and cruelly as harsh as possible for a minority. The principle being "if we make life unbearable they will somehow find a way to leave, we don't care how as it's not our problem, and we don't care if it's so unbearable that the quality of life is significantly worse than the minimum our human rights principles theoretically guarantee". Essentially, they are already supposed to survive on magic or starve and die, even though no minister would admit that. (And some of them _are_ dying.) It seems clear that the government which instituted those laws does not seriously consider the wellbeing of that minority, as if they aren't people at all. Political statements like "making a country for the good of all" are meant to gloss over the fact that said minority is not part of the "all". I think it's this principle which is in play on an ongoing basis, not the laws of the day. So in a cashless economy, I think the principle of "as harsh as possible and we don't care about their wellbeing or basic human rights" will continue, and due to system side effects (rather than intentionally), the consequences will become progressively more severe for a minority. For people to not be excluded in a near-future cashless economy, the driving principle would have to actively change, to make sure everyone has some access to the cashless economy, and at the moment, I see no sign that popular governments would implement something like that.
CogitoCogito 7y ago
I don't understand how people could morally support a push towards cashless without at least those laws being change _first_.

jlokier 7y ago

I don't think it's a strawman, because I think laws like the UK one come from a motivation or principle which is not going away. That is: to make laws that sound appealing to enough of the population, which make life ruinously and cruelly as harsh as possible for a minority. The principle being "if we make life unbearable they will somehow find a way to leave, we don't care how as it's not our problem, and we don't care if it's so unbearable that the quality of life is significantly worse than the minimum our human rights principles theoretically guarantee". Essentially, they are already supposed to survive on magic or starve and die, even though no minister would admit that. (And some of them _are_ dying.) It seems clear that the government which instituted those laws does not seriously consider the wellbeing of that minority, as if they aren't people at all. Political statements like "making a country for the good of all" are meant to gloss over the fact that said minority is not part of the "all". I think it's this principle which is in play on an ongoing basis, not the laws of the day. So in a cashless economy, I think the principle of "as harsh as possible and we don't care about their wellbeing or basic human rights" will continue, and due to system side effects (rather than intentionally), the consequences will become progressively more severe for a minority. For people to not be excluded in a near-future cashless economy, the driving principle would have to actively change, to make sure everyone has some access to the cashless economy, and at the moment, I see no sign that popular governments would implement something like that.

CogitoCogito 7y ago

I don't understand how people could morally support a push towards cashless without at least those laws being change _first_.