5 ms·

> government control over all your assets is becoming a real possibility Isn't this already the case? it's just in day to day life they don't exert that contro

> government control over all your assets is becoming a real possibility Isn't this already the case? it's just in day to day life they don't exert that control over you, but they can. Which of your assets are currently out of reach by your government?

_Understated_ 7y ago
There are checks and balances with the gov though. A sitting member of parliament can't decide to freeze all my assets: A judge must do that after due process. FB (and by extension any private entity) can ban my account for nothing if they like.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > FB (and by extension any private entity) can ban my account for nothing if they like. And Google actually does that. I'm not bringing up Google to shift the example from Facebook, but only to remind everyone that there already is at least one company controlling important aspects of lives of many people, that's known for shutting down people's account seemingly without reason (maybe there are good reasons, but they don't communicate them well) and without recourse (except posting on HN and hoping some googler will spot it). So what you describe isn't a hypothetical problem.
maxerickson 7y ago
Smallish cash transactions aren't actively subjected to scrutiny. For instance, if someone buys drugs with cash, there's no automatically generated electronic record of that transfer. That's different than if you Venmo your dealer or whatever.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  Sure, but they absolutely can simply come to your home, seize your cash, all stuff you've bought with it, seize the home itself and you as well. A sovereign government has full control of the life, liberty and assets of everyone in their territory, subject to all kinds of due process on how they're going to exercise that control or not. The main restraints on gov't power are the ethical and legal choices we the people make to say what the government should be allowed to do, not a physical impossibility to do them. It's not really relevant to debabate whether gov't is capable to seize your virtual assets if it's capable to come and shoot you in the head; it doesn't do that because it's not supposed to do that, not because it's incapable.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    My point is that there are worthwhile freedoms that exist whether the government can seize all your assets or not. That the government can come and take all my cash doesn't make cash less useful for (smallish) private transactions that I'd like to keep private.

_Understated_ 7y ago

There are checks and balances with the gov though. A sitting member of parliament can't decide to freeze all my assets: A judge must do that after due process. FB (and by extension any private entity) can ban my account for nothing if they like.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> FB (and by extension any private entity) can ban my account for nothing if they like. And Google actually does that. I'm not bringing up Google to shift the example from Facebook, but only to remind everyone that there already is at least one company controlling important aspects of lives of many people, that's known for shutting down people's account seemingly without reason (maybe there are good reasons, but they don't communicate them well) and without recourse (except posting on HN and hoping some googler will spot it). So what you describe isn't a hypothetical problem.

maxerickson 7y ago

Smallish cash transactions aren't actively subjected to scrutiny. For instance, if someone buys drugs with cash, there's no automatically generated electronic record of that transfer. That's different than if you Venmo your dealer or whatever.

PeterisP 7y ago
Sure, but they absolutely can simply come to your home, seize your cash, all stuff you've bought with it, seize the home itself and you as well. A sovereign government has full control of the life, liberty and assets of everyone in their territory, subject to all kinds of due process on how they're going to exercise that control or not. The main restraints on gov't power are the ethical and legal choices we the people make to say what the government should be allowed to do, not a physical impossibility to do them. It's not really relevant to debabate whether gov't is capable to seize your virtual assets if it's capable to come and shoot you in the head; it doesn't do that because it's not supposed to do that, not because it's incapable.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  My point is that there are worthwhile freedoms that exist whether the government can seize all your assets or not. That the government can come and take all my cash doesn't make cash less useful for (smallish) private transactions that I'd like to keep private.