12 ms·

A lot of people in this thread are missing the main problem that people have. Yes, cash can be inconvenient, but by eliminating cash entirely you are putting 10

by alexb_ 5y ago

A lot of people in this thread are missing the main problem that people have. Yes, cash can be inconvenient, but by eliminating cash entirely you are putting 100% of all wealth into the power of banks. Those without a bank account will be left behind and FORCED to open one. This gives banks and governments immense control and power over literally all the money you own. Given said power, they will abuse it for their own profit. It's not a question of "IF they abuse it" it is a GUARANTEED. They WILL abuse this power. If you deny this fact, you are living in a fantasy. Give people power, and it will be used, 100% of the time, and not to your benefit.

HideousKojima 5y ago
See, for a recent example in a supposedly free first world country, Canada. Even people who donated to the truckers before the crackdown got targeted in the bank account freezes. Just like with any bulk data collection and surveillance technology, it is only a question of how soon it will be abused.
- lottin 5y ago
  Are you sure this is abuse? My guess is a judge ordered the accounts to be frozen.
  - unmole 5y ago
    You guessed wrong.
  - wolpoli 5y ago
    The canadian government declared an emergency under the emergencies act. The act enables the government to make any orders or regulations, so there is no need to go through the court.
    - lottin 5y ago
      So it's not abuse then? If it was done according to law.
      - esyir 5y ago
        In same way that the patriot act is legal, yes.
      - wolpoli 5y ago
        Yes, it's perfectly legal and done according to law. There are some oversights. Under the Emergencies Act, the Parliament and the Senate get to confirm the use of the act. What surprised people were the fact that the action of voting down the use of the act will trigger an election, and parties didn't want an election. [1] [1]: https://windsorstar.com/news/canada/mps-to-vote-tonight-on-whether-emergencies-act-for-blockades-still-needed/wcm/559bf3e4-f53c-4e30-a895-92202da578c9 https://windsorstar.com/news/canada/mps-to-vote-tonight-on-w...
      - Wildgoose 5y ago
        Vienna’s jews were rounded up into camps perfectly legally according to the Law. I don’t think this is a route you really want to go down.
        lottin 5y ago
        If you're claiming that a government is abusing its power because it froze some funds, and it turns out it was done according to law, then the accusation is unsubstantiated. Maybe it was abusing its power, but we haven't been shown any evidence. And the burden of proof is on you to show that it was an abuse of power.
        xdennis 5y ago
        The government used emergency powers designed to be used in case of war for dealing with peaceful protesters. The previous act was only used during WW1, WW2, and during the October Crisis by Trudeau's alleged father, which is also the reason the powers were watered down. Canada's democracy slip up was criticized in the EU: https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-news/justin-trudeau-blasted-by-eu-parliament-for-handling-of-freedom-convoy-protests-in-canada-articleshow.html https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-n... > the burden of proof is on you Which is impossible because the government explicitly said they won't be transparent and that all the charges are secret: > Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen." -- https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-linked-trucker-protest-1680649 https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-...
  - incomingpain 5y ago
    >Are you sure this is abuse? My guess is a judge ordered the accounts to be frozen. That's kind of the problem. No judge was ever involved. The emergency act was deployed by Trudeau, they seized bank accounts and arrested legitimate peaceful protesters. Tyrannically crushing a legitimate protest just because ~70 semi trucks were illegally parked in ottawa.
    - generj 5y ago
      Shutting down a protest because it completely shut down a major city center and harassed locals for weeks seems like a totally legitimate use of government power to me. They also blocked a major bridge border crossing and attempted to block other border crossings. That makes them less of a protest and more a rebellion. I can’t think of a single country in the world which would allow an absolutely tiny minority to shut down border crossings for extended periods of time. Preventing trade to that extent is arguably a form of violence; using horns in residential areas late at night is definitely violent. Also “crushing” a protest usually involves lots more violence then was employed. Tiananmen Square was crushed (literally), US civil rights protests were crushed with firehouses and dogs, etc. The actions of the Canadian government seem anodyne to any government I’ve heard described as “crushing” a protest.
      - incomingpain 5y ago
        >Shutting down a protest because it completely shut down a major city center It did not do this at all. When I zoom in on Ottawa and ignore gatineau. I would assert the city center is say UofOttwa to the east side, if not all the way to the rideau. Maybe kowloon market, china town, little italy, centretown west is the west side. With a southern spot of maybe the 417 highway? What did the protest block? You'll have to zoom it significant more. It blocked what wellington and queen for 2 blocks? It did absolutely nothing to 90% of the city centre. To suggest a protest at parliament hill is 'completely shutting down the major city center' is absurd. > harassed locals for weeks seems like a totally legitimate use of government power to me. Ok, fine, so we set the precedent that you agree with. You're fine with future governments crushing legitimate protests under the same misrepresentations as well? Afterall, how much conservative protests are there? Pretty rare. We're going to be crushing left-wing protest for the most part. >They also blocked a major bridge border crossing and attempted to block other border crossings. Did they? Which bridge in Ottawa did they block? Or do you mean ambassador bridge which is a related but unconnected protest. This blockade ended before the emergency act was ever implemented. We are talking about Trudeau crushing a legitimate protest in ottawa. The emergency act was used for ONLY ottawa, took them days to even do anything. >That makes them less of a protest and more a rebellion. A rebellion! Oh wow. A peaceful protest in front of parliament with bouncy castles and hottub is a rebellion. I guess they just never quite got around to the rebelling part... I honestly didnt even see the canadian media label them a rebellion. Sure even doug ford called them a military occupation. But rebellion! >I can’t think of a single country in the world which would allow an absolutely tiny minority to shut down border crossings for extended periods of time. People linked Trudeau being in favour of the extremely violent hong kong riots and the only marginally violent farmer protests in india. Yet he refused to even talk to them once. Couldnt even send a staffer to go talk to the protest once. I would hope ANY government would be forced to talk to a protest at least once before declaring national emergency and crushing them with force. >Preventing trade to that extent is arguably a form of violence; using horns in residential areas late at night is definitely violent. Oh wow, we are even redefining what violence is. Why are you doing this? There's a clear reason. The protesters have the right to 'peaceful protest'. You are required to redefine 'violence' in order to invalidate their charter rights. I see what you are doing. You are even redefining what a residential area is. For the record... you have to go about 4 blocks or more away from the protest to get to the first residential building. Where they were parked is not residential at all. Census data is public. The protest was never 'harassing residents'. At most they were 'harassing counter protesters' which is what it is. >Also “crushing” a protest usually involves lots more violence then was employed. Now you're redefining crushing? >The actions of the Canadian government seem anodyne to any government I’ve heard described as “crushing” a protest. Crushing means 'to subdue completely' or 'oppress grievously'. Well the day before they gave the emergency act back. There was not a single protester in ottawa and parliament hill. They subdued the protest completely. AKA they crushed a peaceful protest. There's a reason why Bill Maher called Trudeau Hitler right before he crushed a peaceful protest. After he tyrannically crushed the protest and made protesting illegal for conservatives. Bill Maher seems to be saying that Trudeau = Hitler.
- sgt 5y ago
  Seriously?! How did they justify donating to the truckers as something to be punished? That sounds almost like a police state to me.
  - halfnormalform 5y ago
    They didn't punish a single person who donated. That's just ridiculous.
    - throwaway111023 5y ago
      how is freezing their donations not punishment?
      - halfnormalform 5y ago
        Because once you donate money, you have given it away, and it's gone. If you're expecting something in return you are trying to make a purchase, not a donation. Punishment would involve having something further taken away. If they jailed people for donating, that would be punishment.
        hatefulmoron 5y ago
        > Because once you donate money, you have given it away, and it's gone. Presumably to the entity you intended to donate to, no? I would argue that determining where your money goes is a right.. If I intercepted all of your future charitable donations for my own purposes you would be understandably upset.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        luciusdomitius 5y ago
- gabes 5y ago
  > Even people who donated to the truckers before the crackdown got targeted in the bank account freezes. Source?
  - Wildgoose 5y ago
    I saw this reported here in the UK. I believe it was also mentioned in a recent Unherd article about the dangerous implications of this misuse of powers, but I’m sure you are capable of using a search engine.
    - gabes 5y ago
      I was asking because American right wing news has frequently lied about what was happening here in Canada. To my knowledge there hasn’t been a single report of a frozen bank account over a donation except for some debunked tweet by a Canadian conservative politician. Thus, I asked for a source.
  - xdennis 5y ago
    There's no way to know for sure because these are all secret charges (Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen." -- https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-linked-trucker-protest-1680649 https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-... ). But there are some example of people who have come forth: https://www.visiontimes.com/2022/02/21/canadians-frozen-bank-accounts-lawmakers-say.html https://www.visiontimes.com/2022/02/21/canadians-frozen-bank...
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      Not knowing anything about the Vision Times, a quick search: > Vision Times is one of the news organizations that Falun Gong's founder Li Hongzhi refers to as "our media".[1] The newspaper's president is the spokesperson for the Falun Dafa Association in New York, and is chair of another Falun Gong group called Quit the CCP.[1] In 2021, The Atlantic called Vision Times a "doppelgänger site" of The Epoch Times.[5] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanzhongguo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanzhongguo
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > Even people who donated to the truckers before the crackdown got targeted in the bank account freezes. [citation needed] The Emergencies Act,[1] explicitly written to be compatible with the Charter, does not allow for retroactive actions [2]. There was a lot of initial confusion, and so whatever story you may have heard (and is stuck in your head), you may wish to go back and double-check to see if there were any corrections. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#Canada
  - incomingpain 5y ago
    I see you are a throwaway account and unlikely to respond. One cannot deny that the emergency act was used this way. The RCMP confirmed(https://blockade.rcmp.ca/news-nouvelles/ncr-rcn211130-s-d-en.html https://blockade.rcmp.ca/news-nouvelles/ncr-rcn211130-s-d-en...) that this happened and denied being the ones who did it. Implying either the government went around them OR the banks took this action upon themselves with gigantic liability issues. >The Emergencies Act,[1] explicitly written to be compatible with the Charter, does not allow for retroactive actions [2]. That's a very good point, but incorrect. The emergency act is EXPECTED to trample on charter rights. In an actual emergency it's entirely expected that police will go over the line. What exactly was the emergency act used for? Not a single blockade existed. It was used entirely for the protest in Ottawa. Their goal is to remove the illegally parked semi trucks. If this was used in such a way that charter rights were not trampled on. The police would have gone in, towed the trucks and left the protesters who were lawfully protesting. That's not at all what happened. They came in and removed the entire lawful protest, not just some illegally parked trucks. The emergency act was used to crush a legitimate protest. So what happens next? Section 46 of the emergency act is next. The people damaged by the protest, be it having gotten pepper sprayed or your right to protest being removed. You get compensation. The crown is about to pay huge $ to these protesters.
    - philistine 5y ago
      To safely remove the trucks from the street, nobody needs to be around the workers doing the towing. It's basic health and safety. Police repeatedly asked people to leave. Many refused, many complied. Would you have prefered the police run over the protesters with their own trucks?
- singularity2001 5y ago
  See also China, were people can be basically pushed out of society by blocking their bank accounts. (China is an astonishingly cashless society)
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
They already do abuse it and cash isn't a solution to that because even if your savings are in cash the value stolen from you though inflation. BTC is the only escape hatch.
- smt88 5y ago
  There are many deflationary, liquid assets other than BTC.
- alexb_ 5y ago
  What is it with crypto people and thinking deflation is a good thing?
  - chrisjc 5y ago
    I think it's in their interest since they're using crypto as an "investment" rather than a means to exchange goods and services. Moreover, it's probably hard to envision as an issue as long as it works to their advantage and concentrated amongst a few in a form of digital currency. Then again, I rarely hear anyone discuss the benefits of inflation (I didn't say hyperinflation). "This damn inflation is making my mortgage payments significantly less than my payments from 10 year ago!" said Nobody
    - BenjiWiebe 5y ago
      Well, inflation isn't making prices (services, goods) lower. Aren't there many people who have low/no debt, and those people are only hurt by inflation? What about savings? I'm not an economist, though, and still struggling to understand the roles that inflation plays in the economy.
      - chrisjc 5y ago
        I'm far from an economist myself... but there is relevant debt beyond individuals' debt. There is national, foreign, state and city, etc... an argument could be made that some of this debt is even exported abroad. Inflation, might not make goods and services cheaper, but it can have an effect that can be used to one's advantage. I've already mentioned mortgages, but it might be the same with many other loans and services. Assuming interest rates are low enough (if not zero), then deferring the whole payment means that you retain money to work for you, as well as take advantage of the effects of inflation on the overall financed amount as long as the period is long enough. Locking in service rates (grandfathered) can work to your advantage as well, depending on the service agreements of course. I'd say there are a lot of people with bad debt, but often times that comes as a result of hardship, or just bad financial decisions and life choices. Those that have no debt are probably not going through financial hardships, but should probably start accruing manageable debt to avail from the effects of inflation, retain more money so that it can work for them, and build credit history to become more debt-worthy. Saving money is just losing money due to inflation and lost potential. It's a difficult one bc we all know we should keep a certain amount of money just in case, and putting it somewhere where it's working for you but still liquid if needed is quite difficult. If times get hard and you need to liquidate your investments, chances are that you will be losing a lot bc when times are hard, investments are down. Saving money is really quit discourage, and there are some pretty compelling reasons why this is a good thing. Money that is saved is usually money that is out of circulation. As a result, it's not doing any "work" and fewer goods and services are purchased and economies slow as a result.
halfnormalform 5y ago
Whats wrong with everyone just HAVING a bank account?
- beberlei 5y ago
  Its like forcing everyone to have a Facebook account to talk to their local authorities.
  - smt88 5y ago
    It's more like forcing everyone to have an email address. You have a huge variety of choice of bank, including nonprofit, cooperative credit unions that don't do anything evil to their customers.
    - beebeepka 5y ago
      No need for analogies. It's literally forcing the public to use - and give money to - private entities. Banks borrow money cheap. Can a regular person do that? No. Of course not. It's clearly about control/money. Same thing
      - rosndo 5y ago
        > Banks borrow money cheap. Can a regular person do that? No. Of course not. There are a plenty of cheap loans available to regular persons, but of course you have to be an adult to access those.
      - smt88 5y ago
        Depositing money isn't giving money to a bank. It's exchanging money for highly liquid debt and receiving interest in return. Giving money to a bank is a relationship where the bank pays you. Also, the government already forces you to have auto insurance. This doesn't really seem any better or worse.
      - throw0101a 5y ago
        > Banks borrow money cheap. Banks don't need to borrow money, they just create it: * https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1905625 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1905625 * https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m... If you still think about banks re-loaning bank deposits you're living in another century. Fractional reserve banking hasn't been a thing since (at least) the 1960s.
delusional 5y ago
I get you point, but I want to point out that "Give people power, and it will be used" does not justify the statement "They WILL abuse this power". Not every USE of power is an ABUSE of power.
- soundnote 5y ago
  That is true. But has issues with diverging interests. The interests of government bureaucrats who see like a state are not at all necessarily in line with my own.
skywal_l 5y ago
It is clearly a problem, although, I am afraid, you've been forced to have a bank account in most western countries for a while now. Removing cash is part of that process but it's not the beginning. That boat a sail a while ago. What we need is more competition in the banking sectors. And I am not talking about more private for-profits banks. We need: 1. Public own banks. A bank as a public service. Indeed, governments will have more control on it but if you are a citizen of another country, this becomes less of a problem. You could be depositing your money into the Public Bank of Canada for example. A bank as a public service might have nefarious interests too but at least they would be different from a private for-profit bank. 2. We need private non profit banks. Banks run as an NGO. And on this, we could help by providing open source banking software. Rigorously tested and hardened.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  >Public own bank. We had those in the UK, they were called building societies. They were mostly regional and offered savings accounts and mortgages. Unfortunately nearly all of them demutualised in the nineties, there is only one major one left now[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_Building_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_Building_Society
- notch656a 5y ago
  >you've been forced to have a bank account in most western countries for a while now. You have, many haven't. There's plenty of people who pay their rent in cash and work in a business that pays them in cash (strippers, some farm laborers, etc). Surviving in the US with cash only would take away a lot of options for many people but at the same time, it's completely possible. IMO we need more ways to bypass banks, including the central bank, not more of them.
  - jonplackett 5y ago
    I’m always surprised at the supermarket how many people are waiting much longer to use the only automated checkout that accepts cash. There’s still a lot of people who don’t have a card, or can’t use a card for some reason.
Youden 5y ago
According to the article, that isn't the main problem that people have: "Overall, 23 million people said that using cash made them feel more in control of their finances. Two-thirds were concerned about fraud when making payments and 57pc were concerned about privacy." The rest of the article, if I'm reading it right, makes it clear that "in control" is meant in the sense of "to be on top of it", rather than a distrust of banks or the government.
jonplackett 5y ago
It’s also putting way too much power with VISA / Mastercard / Amex. We now have corporations who can skim off a percentage of absolutely every sale. And they keep putting up their prices. I don’t mind paying with a card but there needs to be a new option that cuts these companies out.
- no1lives4ever 5y ago
  Here in India government has come up with a few policies that helps a lot in this regard. Firstly we have UPI that allows for instant bank account to bank account transfers. Most banks give 20-30 free UPI transactions per month. In addition, government came up with a rule to have 0 transaction fees on low value transactions on cards. In addition to this, government has also been promoting a alternative to visa/mastercard with the rupay network. I think more countries need to look into these. Here in India cash use is still very popular and mostly used for tax avoidance and to avoid surveillance by the government agencies.
  - Symbiote 5y ago
    The UK (when part of the EU) limited the fees Visa and MasterCard can charge — 0.2% of the transaction for debit cards and 0.3% for credit cards. Electronic transfers (made by website, telephone, app, in the branch etc) between bank accounts are also free for consumers, although I don't think there's any rule requiring this.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Banks already massively abuse this power, and in any case the UK and US have laws that allow seizure of cash and other assets in criminal cases. So do private corporations like Ebay, which have a history of closing private accounts for random reasons. But for context, this is a scare story without any real substance in the UK's premier far-right paper for rich kooks. The Telegraph is notorious as a non-reputable source, and I would be very surprised if there any serious moves to ban cash in the UK - or the US - any time soon.
TomSwirly 5y ago
Here in the Netherlands, the government has been pushing back against cashless for more or less this reason - that it grinds the poor who are most likely to be unbanked. One of their papers on the subject basically accepted that a lot of the poorest Dutch residents are using cash in the underground economy, and advised that tampering with it would cause a lot of hardship.

by alexb_ 5y ago

HideousKojima 5y ago

See, for a recent example in a supposedly free first world country, Canada. Even people who donated to the truckers before the crackdown got targeted in the bank account freezes. Just like with any bulk data collection and surveillance technology, it is only a question of how soon it will be abused.

lottin 5y ago
Are you sure this is abuse? My guess is a judge ordered the accounts to be frozen.
- unmole 5y ago
  You guessed wrong.
- wolpoli 5y ago
  The canadian government declared an emergency under the emergencies act. The act enables the government to make any orders or regulations, so there is no need to go through the court.
  - lottin 5y ago
    So it's not abuse then? If it was done according to law.
    - esyir 5y ago
      In same way that the patriot act is legal, yes.
    - wolpoli 5y ago
      Yes, it's perfectly legal and done according to law. There are some oversights. Under the Emergencies Act, the Parliament and the Senate get to confirm the use of the act. What surprised people were the fact that the action of voting down the use of the act will trigger an election, and parties didn't want an election. [1] [1]: https://windsorstar.com/news/canada/mps-to-vote-tonight-on-whether-emergencies-act-for-blockades-still-needed/wcm/559bf3e4-f53c-4e30-a895-92202da578c9 https://windsorstar.com/news/canada/mps-to-vote-tonight-on-w...
    - Wildgoose 5y ago
      Vienna’s jews were rounded up into camps perfectly legally according to the Law. I don’t think this is a route you really want to go down.
      - lottin 5y ago
        If you're claiming that a government is abusing its power because it froze some funds, and it turns out it was done according to law, then the accusation is unsubstantiated. Maybe it was abusing its power, but we haven't been shown any evidence. And the burden of proof is on you to show that it was an abuse of power.
        xdennis 5y ago
        The government used emergency powers designed to be used in case of war for dealing with peaceful protesters. The previous act was only used during WW1, WW2, and during the October Crisis by Trudeau's alleged father, which is also the reason the powers were watered down. Canada's democracy slip up was criticized in the EU: https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-news/justin-trudeau-blasted-by-eu-parliament-for-handling-of-freedom-convoy-protests-in-canada-articleshow.html https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-n... > the burden of proof is on you Which is impossible because the government explicitly said they won't be transparent and that all the charges are secret: > Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen." -- https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-linked-trucker-protest-1680649 https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-...
- incomingpain 5y ago
  >Are you sure this is abuse? My guess is a judge ordered the accounts to be frozen. That's kind of the problem. No judge was ever involved. The emergency act was deployed by Trudeau, they seized bank accounts and arrested legitimate peaceful protesters. Tyrannically crushing a legitimate protest just because ~70 semi trucks were illegally parked in ottawa.
  - generj 5y ago
    Shutting down a protest because it completely shut down a major city center and harassed locals for weeks seems like a totally legitimate use of government power to me. They also blocked a major bridge border crossing and attempted to block other border crossings. That makes them less of a protest and more a rebellion. I can’t think of a single country in the world which would allow an absolutely tiny minority to shut down border crossings for extended periods of time. Preventing trade to that extent is arguably a form of violence; using horns in residential areas late at night is definitely violent. Also “crushing” a protest usually involves lots more violence then was employed. Tiananmen Square was crushed (literally), US civil rights protests were crushed with firehouses and dogs, etc. The actions of the Canadian government seem anodyne to any government I’ve heard described as “crushing” a protest.
    - incomingpain 5y ago
      >Shutting down a protest because it completely shut down a major city center It did not do this at all. When I zoom in on Ottawa and ignore gatineau. I would assert the city center is say UofOttwa to the east side, if not all the way to the rideau. Maybe kowloon market, china town, little italy, centretown west is the west side. With a southern spot of maybe the 417 highway? What did the protest block? You'll have to zoom it significant more. It blocked what wellington and queen for 2 blocks? It did absolutely nothing to 90% of the city centre. To suggest a protest at parliament hill is 'completely shutting down the major city center' is absurd. > harassed locals for weeks seems like a totally legitimate use of government power to me. Ok, fine, so we set the precedent that you agree with. You're fine with future governments crushing legitimate protests under the same misrepresentations as well? Afterall, how much conservative protests are there? Pretty rare. We're going to be crushing left-wing protest for the most part. >They also blocked a major bridge border crossing and attempted to block other border crossings. Did they? Which bridge in Ottawa did they block? Or do you mean ambassador bridge which is a related but unconnected protest. This blockade ended before the emergency act was ever implemented. We are talking about Trudeau crushing a legitimate protest in ottawa. The emergency act was used for ONLY ottawa, took them days to even do anything. >That makes them less of a protest and more a rebellion. A rebellion! Oh wow. A peaceful protest in front of parliament with bouncy castles and hottub is a rebellion. I guess they just never quite got around to the rebelling part... I honestly didnt even see the canadian media label them a rebellion. Sure even doug ford called them a military occupation. But rebellion! >I can’t think of a single country in the world which would allow an absolutely tiny minority to shut down border crossings for extended periods of time. People linked Trudeau being in favour of the extremely violent hong kong riots and the only marginally violent farmer protests in india. Yet he refused to even talk to them once. Couldnt even send a staffer to go talk to the protest once. I would hope ANY government would be forced to talk to a protest at least once before declaring national emergency and crushing them with force. >Preventing trade to that extent is arguably a form of violence; using horns in residential areas late at night is definitely violent. Oh wow, we are even redefining what violence is. Why are you doing this? There's a clear reason. The protesters have the right to 'peaceful protest'. You are required to redefine 'violence' in order to invalidate their charter rights. I see what you are doing. You are even redefining what a residential area is. For the record... you have to go about 4 blocks or more away from the protest to get to the first residential building. Where they were parked is not residential at all. Census data is public. The protest was never 'harassing residents'. At most they were 'harassing counter protesters' which is what it is. >Also “crushing” a protest usually involves lots more violence then was employed. Now you're redefining crushing? >The actions of the Canadian government seem anodyne to any government I’ve heard described as “crushing” a protest. Crushing means 'to subdue completely' or 'oppress grievously'. Well the day before they gave the emergency act back. There was not a single protester in ottawa and parliament hill. They subdued the protest completely. AKA they crushed a peaceful protest. There's a reason why Bill Maher called Trudeau Hitler right before he crushed a peaceful protest. After he tyrannically crushed the protest and made protesting illegal for conservatives. Bill Maher seems to be saying that Trudeau = Hitler.
sgt 5y ago
Seriously?! How did they justify donating to the truckers as something to be punished? That sounds almost like a police state to me.
- halfnormalform 5y ago
  They didn't punish a single person who donated. That's just ridiculous.
  - throwaway111023 5y ago
    how is freezing their donations not punishment?
    - halfnormalform 5y ago
      Because once you donate money, you have given it away, and it's gone. If you're expecting something in return you are trying to make a purchase, not a donation. Punishment would involve having something further taken away. If they jailed people for donating, that would be punishment.
      - hatefulmoron 5y ago
        > Because once you donate money, you have given it away, and it's gone. Presumably to the entity you intended to donate to, no? I would argue that determining where your money goes is a right.. If I intercepted all of your future charitable donations for my own purposes you would be understandably upset.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - luciusdomitius 5y ago
gabes 5y ago
> Even people who donated to the truckers before the crackdown got targeted in the bank account freezes. Source?
- Wildgoose 5y ago
  I saw this reported here in the UK. I believe it was also mentioned in a recent Unherd article about the dangerous implications of this misuse of powers, but I’m sure you are capable of using a search engine.
  - gabes 5y ago
    I was asking because American right wing news has frequently lied about what was happening here in Canada. To my knowledge there hasn’t been a single report of a frozen bank account over a donation except for some debunked tweet by a Canadian conservative politician. Thus, I asked for a source.
- xdennis 5y ago
  There's no way to know for sure because these are all secret charges (Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen." -- https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-linked-trucker-protest-1680649 https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-... ). But there are some example of people who have come forth: https://www.visiontimes.com/2022/02/21/canadians-frozen-bank-accounts-lawmakers-say.html https://www.visiontimes.com/2022/02/21/canadians-frozen-bank...
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    Not knowing anything about the Vision Times, a quick search: > Vision Times is one of the news organizations that Falun Gong's founder Li Hongzhi refers to as "our media".[1] The newspaper's president is the spokesperson for the Falun Dafa Association in New York, and is chair of another Falun Gong group called Quit the CCP.[1] In 2021, The Atlantic called Vision Times a "doppelgänger site" of The Epoch Times.[5] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanzhongguo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanzhongguo
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throw0101a 5y ago
> Even people who donated to the truckers before the crackdown got targeted in the bank account freezes. [citation needed] The Emergencies Act,[1] explicitly written to be compatible with the Charter, does not allow for retroactive actions [2]. There was a lot of initial confusion, and so whatever story you may have heard (and is stuck in your head), you may wish to go back and double-check to see if there were any corrections. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#Canada
- incomingpain 5y ago
  I see you are a throwaway account and unlikely to respond. One cannot deny that the emergency act was used this way. The RCMP confirmed(https://blockade.rcmp.ca/news-nouvelles/ncr-rcn211130-s-d-en.html https://blockade.rcmp.ca/news-nouvelles/ncr-rcn211130-s-d-en...) that this happened and denied being the ones who did it. Implying either the government went around them OR the banks took this action upon themselves with gigantic liability issues. >The Emergencies Act,[1] explicitly written to be compatible with the Charter, does not allow for retroactive actions [2]. That's a very good point, but incorrect. The emergency act is EXPECTED to trample on charter rights. In an actual emergency it's entirely expected that police will go over the line. What exactly was the emergency act used for? Not a single blockade existed. It was used entirely for the protest in Ottawa. Their goal is to remove the illegally parked semi trucks. If this was used in such a way that charter rights were not trampled on. The police would have gone in, towed the trucks and left the protesters who were lawfully protesting. That's not at all what happened. They came in and removed the entire lawful protest, not just some illegally parked trucks. The emergency act was used to crush a legitimate protest. So what happens next? Section 46 of the emergency act is next. The people damaged by the protest, be it having gotten pepper sprayed or your right to protest being removed. You get compensation. The crown is about to pay huge $ to these protesters.
  - philistine 5y ago
    To safely remove the trucks from the street, nobody needs to be around the workers doing the towing. It's basic health and safety. Police repeatedly asked people to leave. Many refused, many complied. Would you have prefered the police run over the protesters with their own trucks?
singularity2001 5y ago
See also China, were people can be basically pushed out of society by blocking their bank accounts. (China is an astonishingly cashless society)

whywhywhywhy 5y ago

They already do abuse it and cash isn't a solution to that because even if your savings are in cash the value stolen from you though inflation. BTC is the only escape hatch.

smt88 5y ago
There are many deflationary, liquid assets other than BTC.
alexb_ 5y ago
What is it with crypto people and thinking deflation is a good thing?
- chrisjc 5y ago
  I think it's in their interest since they're using crypto as an "investment" rather than a means to exchange goods and services. Moreover, it's probably hard to envision as an issue as long as it works to their advantage and concentrated amongst a few in a form of digital currency. Then again, I rarely hear anyone discuss the benefits of inflation (I didn't say hyperinflation). "This damn inflation is making my mortgage payments significantly less than my payments from 10 year ago!" said Nobody
  - BenjiWiebe 5y ago
    Well, inflation isn't making prices (services, goods) lower. Aren't there many people who have low/no debt, and those people are only hurt by inflation? What about savings? I'm not an economist, though, and still struggling to understand the roles that inflation plays in the economy.
    - chrisjc 5y ago
      I'm far from an economist myself... but there is relevant debt beyond individuals' debt. There is national, foreign, state and city, etc... an argument could be made that some of this debt is even exported abroad. Inflation, might not make goods and services cheaper, but it can have an effect that can be used to one's advantage. I've already mentioned mortgages, but it might be the same with many other loans and services. Assuming interest rates are low enough (if not zero), then deferring the whole payment means that you retain money to work for you, as well as take advantage of the effects of inflation on the overall financed amount as long as the period is long enough. Locking in service rates (grandfathered) can work to your advantage as well, depending on the service agreements of course. I'd say there are a lot of people with bad debt, but often times that comes as a result of hardship, or just bad financial decisions and life choices. Those that have no debt are probably not going through financial hardships, but should probably start accruing manageable debt to avail from the effects of inflation, retain more money so that it can work for them, and build credit history to become more debt-worthy. Saving money is just losing money due to inflation and lost potential. It's a difficult one bc we all know we should keep a certain amount of money just in case, and putting it somewhere where it's working for you but still liquid if needed is quite difficult. If times get hard and you need to liquidate your investments, chances are that you will be losing a lot bc when times are hard, investments are down. Saving money is really quit discourage, and there are some pretty compelling reasons why this is a good thing. Money that is saved is usually money that is out of circulation. As a result, it's not doing any "work" and fewer goods and services are purchased and economies slow as a result.

halfnormalform 5y ago

Whats wrong with everyone just HAVING a bank account?

beberlei 5y ago
Its like forcing everyone to have a Facebook account to talk to their local authorities.
- smt88 5y ago
  It's more like forcing everyone to have an email address. You have a huge variety of choice of bank, including nonprofit, cooperative credit unions that don't do anything evil to their customers.
  - beebeepka 5y ago
    No need for analogies. It's literally forcing the public to use - and give money to - private entities. Banks borrow money cheap. Can a regular person do that? No. Of course not. It's clearly about control/money. Same thing
    - rosndo 5y ago
      > Banks borrow money cheap. Can a regular person do that? No. Of course not. There are a plenty of cheap loans available to regular persons, but of course you have to be an adult to access those.
    - smt88 5y ago
      Depositing money isn't giving money to a bank. It's exchanging money for highly liquid debt and receiving interest in return. Giving money to a bank is a relationship where the bank pays you. Also, the government already forces you to have auto insurance. This doesn't really seem any better or worse.
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      > Banks borrow money cheap. Banks don't need to borrow money, they just create it: * https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1905625 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1905625 * https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m... If you still think about banks re-loaning bank deposits you're living in another century. Fractional reserve banking hasn't been a thing since (at least) the 1960s.

delusional 5y ago

I get you point, but I want to point out that "Give people power, and it will be used" does not justify the statement "They WILL abuse this power". Not every USE of power is an ABUSE of power.

soundnote 5y ago
That is true. But has issues with diverging interests. The interests of government bureaucrats who see like a state are not at all necessarily in line with my own.

skywal_l 5y ago

It is clearly a problem, although, I am afraid, you've been forced to have a bank account in most western countries for a while now. Removing cash is part of that process but it's not the beginning. That boat a sail a while ago. What we need is more competition in the banking sectors. And I am not talking about more private for-profits banks. We need: 1. Public own banks. A bank as a public service. Indeed, governments will have more control on it but if you are a citizen of another country, this becomes less of a problem. You could be depositing your money into the Public Bank of Canada for example. A bank as a public service might have nefarious interests too but at least they would be different from a private for-profit bank. 2. We need private non profit banks. Banks run as an NGO. And on this, we could help by providing open source banking software. Rigorously tested and hardened.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>Public own bank. We had those in the UK, they were called building societies. They were mostly regional and offered savings accounts and mortgages. Unfortunately nearly all of them demutualised in the nineties, there is only one major one left now[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_Building_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_Building_Society
notch656a 5y ago
>you've been forced to have a bank account in most western countries for a while now. You have, many haven't. There's plenty of people who pay their rent in cash and work in a business that pays them in cash (strippers, some farm laborers, etc). Surviving in the US with cash only would take away a lot of options for many people but at the same time, it's completely possible. IMO we need more ways to bypass banks, including the central bank, not more of them.
- jonplackett 5y ago
  I’m always surprised at the supermarket how many people are waiting much longer to use the only automated checkout that accepts cash. There’s still a lot of people who don’t have a card, or can’t use a card for some reason.

Youden 5y ago

According to the article, that isn't the main problem that people have: "Overall, 23 million people said that using cash made them feel more in control of their finances. Two-thirds were concerned about fraud when making payments and 57pc were concerned about privacy." The rest of the article, if I'm reading it right, makes it clear that "in control" is meant in the sense of "to be on top of it", rather than a distrust of banks or the government.

jonplackett 5y ago

It’s also putting way too much power with VISA / Mastercard / Amex. We now have corporations who can skim off a percentage of absolutely every sale. And they keep putting up their prices. I don’t mind paying with a card but there needs to be a new option that cuts these companies out.

no1lives4ever 5y ago
Here in India government has come up with a few policies that helps a lot in this regard. Firstly we have UPI that allows for instant bank account to bank account transfers. Most banks give 20-30 free UPI transactions per month. In addition, government came up with a rule to have 0 transaction fees on low value transactions on cards. In addition to this, government has also been promoting a alternative to visa/mastercard with the rupay network. I think more countries need to look into these. Here in India cash use is still very popular and mostly used for tax avoidance and to avoid surveillance by the government agencies.
- Symbiote 5y ago
  The UK (when part of the EU) limited the fees Visa and MasterCard can charge — 0.2% of the transaction for debit cards and 0.3% for credit cards. Electronic transfers (made by website, telephone, app, in the branch etc) between bank accounts are also free for consumers, although I don't think there's any rule requiring this.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

Banks already massively abuse this power, and in any case the UK and US have laws that allow seizure of cash and other assets in criminal cases. So do private corporations like Ebay, which have a history of closing private accounts for random reasons. But for context, this is a scare story without any real substance in the UK's premier far-right paper for rich kooks. The Telegraph is notorious as a non-reputable source, and I would be very surprised if there any serious moves to ban cash in the UK - or the US - any time soon.

TomSwirly 5y ago

Here in the Netherlands, the government has been pushing back against cashless for more or less this reason - that it grinds the poor who are most likely to be unbanked. One of their papers on the subject basically accepted that a lot of the poorest Dutch residents are using cash in the underground economy, and advised that tampering with it would cause a lot of hardship.