6 ms·
It's no longer your money if you cannot spend it as you wish.
by varispeed 5y ago
It's no longer your money if you cannot spend it as you wish.
- johneth 5y agoSo it's not your money if you can't spend it supporting, for example, terrorism?
- thedudeabides5 5y agoMaybe it’s not a binary thing of “your money is free or not free” but rather it is and always has been on a scale. There have always been things it hasn’t been ok to purchase, but as per comments above, it’s the ability to enforce these whims on a global scale that’s new
- elric 5y agoSpending money on illegal things, is illegal. Spending money on dubious things, is not. I'm sure crypto exchanges and the like are illegal in some parts of the world. But it isn't clear to me whether that's the case in the UK. The argument here, presumably, is that banks shouldn't have a policing function. You can choose to (dis)agree with that, but it's a valid argument.
- pfisherman 5y agoThis is a rather facile statement. States going back to antiquity have maintained the right to prohibit certain transactions. For example, you cannot legally buy or sell people most places in the world. Likewise the marketplace for many hazardous substances - such as explosives - is tightly controlled.
- yaa_minu 5y agoExcept this is neither a state prohibition nor about explosives.
- notapenny 5y agoStrictly its not state since the FCA operates separately from the UK government, but they do have quite some authority in regulating financial markets. So a body regulating the market on behalf of the state is doing the prohibiting. I don't know about the legalities, but it may well be that banks have little choice but to comply versus going against the regulator. Though Barclays' line about "we want to protect your money" is a bit much.
- cblconfederate 5y agoNo they haven't really. The state control of money is very recent concept, post gold-standard. States and empires even rarely had their own coin. The opium war was less than 200 years ago. Even passports werent enforced until WW1. Control on the scale we have today was never possible , for technical reasons
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- notahacker 5y agoState control of customs and excise pre-dates the Magna Carta, so the English state has devoted resources to chasing participants in transactions it deems unlawful for several hundred years. Modern money laundering controls weren't possible until electronic money and record keeping, but then for related technical reasons it was much harder to evade the primitive controls they did have.
- chalst 5y agoThis is not very accurate. In ancient times, mints frequently adulterated the content of coins, so coins were usually worth more within the kingdom or empire than outside it. Gold was not the ubiquitous denominator of value: silver was widely used in ancient times. Generally empires needed coins to pay armies so gold and silver mines had strategic value. In medieval times, this was the story in Christendom, although interestingly the Islamic world was associated with mints that did not adulterate their coins, which therefore kept their value outside the Islamic world and were much sought after in China. You are right about the recency of passport enforcement.
- cblconfederate 5y agoYet even those empires could not enforce their subjects to use only their coins. Hence why the gold/silver value was what mattered and why some coins like the fiorin were international designs. Fiat money is what allows governments extreme control on money
- 5y ago
- mopsi 5y agoNot only transactions. Publications too. The ability to express what you want and how you want, and distribute to a large number of people without a prior approval is a very recent thing. Some say it's a mistake.
- cblconfederate 5y agoThat's ahistorical. Wars and revolutions started with freely distributed pamphlets
- ceejayoz 5y agoWars and revolutions predate the existence of pamphlets by many thousands of years.
- csomar 5y agoBitcoin (or Crypto) is not people and I don't think it's going to explode or emit gamma radiations anytime soon.
- Bootvis 5y agoIn those cases, possession is prohibited. You’re probably not allowed to manufacture explosives or own people either.
- varispeed 5y agoWhat do you mean? Is there some sort of a magic force that stops one person from handing over a suitcase of cash to another? What this bank does is trying to prevent crime before it may or may not happen. This is sick and dystopian. What's next, are we going to arrest people because they have cutlery and may or may not do something with it. That's preposterous!
- robertlagrant 5y agoI have a pound. I wish to spend it on buying your house. Can I assume we have a deal?
- notapenny 5y agoYou're confusing something that's for sale freely with something that's not. Though maybe if you add a few more pounds... But more relevant to the parent's comment; would your bank prevent your from trying to spend that pound?
- Jochim 5y agoShould your bank prevent you from spending that pound if the transaction is for something illicit? If your bank knows you've stolen that pound being used to purchase a legal good/service, should they allow you to spend it?
- Graffur 5y agoMy bank is a place I store money when not using it.. so that it's not in my house or at risk of being stolen. The fact I use the bank as a utility to also spend that money is unfortunate. Thank God (Satoshi) for crypto so that I can spend my money without needing a bank to allow it.
- null_object 5y agoJust a reminder: you don’t need satoshi to spend your money wherever you want. You can just withdraw it from your bank as cash first. Just think this freedom has existed for thousands of years without the need to burn up the planet with meaningless computations as a prerequisite.
- hulahoof 5y agoIn Australia they have moved to BSB cash transactions over $10K, with a stated goal of becoming a cashless society. I wouldn't be so sure this will always be an option.
- rchaud 5y agoIs Binance even a currency exchange if they are limited to electronic transfers?