8 ms·
This is a rather facile statement. States going back to antiquity have maintained the right to prohibit certain transactions. For example, you cannot legally
by pfisherman 5y ago
This 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
- chalst 5y agoIn ancient times, most transactions did not involve money at all. That is the big difference to the modern era. Generally, the gold/silver value was really hard to determine, but minted coins could be more valuable than their believed metallic value: they had exchange value dealing with the regime. I strongly recommend David Graeber's "Debt: The first 5000 years", which is an anthropological account of the changing role of debt and money around the world over history
- 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!