4 ms·

None of the rights enjoyed by citizens of liberal democracies matter without the right to transact. You can’t exercise your right to speech if you can’t buy pos

by md2020 4y ago

None of the rights enjoyed by citizens of liberal democracies matter without the right to transact. You can’t exercise your right to speech if you can’t buy posters or domain names for your cause. You can’t go to a protest outside of walking distance if you can’t pay for gas in your car, or a bus or train ticket. Governments gaining such control of currency would be a backslide into authoritarianism.

rainingmonkey 4y ago
> You can’t exercise your right to speech if you can’t buy posters or domain names for your cause. You can’t go to a protest outside of walking distance if you can’t pay for gas in your car, or a bus or train ticket. I think this aught to make us consider the antidemocratic effects of poverty and inequality too.
jqpabc123 4y ago
Your comment is based on unfounded assumptions --- that the current banking system will be subverted and cash will no longer be accepted and due process under the law will become null and void. None of these are being proposed. Implementing all of these would require changing the constitution. In other words, your comment is an example of the paranoia I referred to.
- ellopoppit 4y ago
  The freezing of bank accounts of political dissidents has precedent in recent history
  - jqpabc123 4y ago
    Where these dissidents doing more than just protesting? Perhaps committing crimes by impeding and infringing on the rights of other citizens? Cry me a river of unfounded paranoia.
    - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
      I'm pretty sure Snowden or the schihub founder would be candidates to freezing. Cryptos are really useful for specific edge cases where the law become too retrograde. That is not a huge market, but that is a meaningful one.
    - drdaeman 4y ago
      Well, if we'd step out of "citizens of liberal democracies" scope defined by a parent comment... Then, there's also another story of "freezing of bank accounts of political dissidents" - Mr. Navalny and FBK. Obviously, the government position is that they're criminals who impeded and infringed on the rights of other citizens. It's not that I agree or disagree with your example - honestly, I've no idea, I haven't really tracked that story I presume you're talking about. What I suspect, though, is that ultimately, it's all a matter of trust. Which is a highly subjective matter. What I wanted to say is that it might not exactly be a good idea, tone-wise, to call it a "paranoia", when it's just a matter of disagreement about subjective things.
    - ellopoppit 4y ago
      So you admit there is now recent precedent for people allegedly committing crimes having their bank accounts frozen, without even a public hearing or trial? Dr. King and Gandhi were also committing crimes by "impeding and infringing on the rights of other citizens"
- drdaeman 4y ago
  > Implementing all of these would require changing the constitution. A statement like this requires being explicit about the country or set of countries in question, narrowing down the set of constitutions that would require amendments. If the legal system of a country does not explicitly require merchants to accept cash (some places do, some don't - just like in some places a merchant may refuse a customer and in some they can't), it is technically possible to create a practically cashless environment without having to explicitly lock anything down explicitly, but merely by creating an incentive to not accept cash. There's barely any practical difference between no one (save a few die-hards acting on a principle) accepting cash because it's inconvenient to deal with (or simply unfashionable, hah) and actually blocking cash acceptance - the model is indeed different but outcome is ultimately the same. For an imaginary extremely powerful and nefarious adversary the former model is even preferential, as it provides a plausible deniability. Whenever there's such and adversary with a will and power to do so is a separate question which I'll intentionally avoid.
  - jqpabc123 4y ago
    A statement like this requires being explicit about the country or set of countries in question Since we are talking about a digital dollar the country in question is the USA.
- md2020 4y ago
  Cashless society is indeed being proposed in the US. During the time when I was in college (at a public university), all university-run businesses switched to cashless. As in, you literally could not pay with cash. They wouldn’t accept it. > Implementing all of these would require changing the constitution This is naïve. Many countries, the US included, have variations of an emergency powers act, where the executive can get around the constitution in some ways. Even without that, though, you still can have things like Operation Choke Point [1], where the government merely makes suggestions/threats to private banks and payment processors to close the accounts associated with things they don’t like. So no, this has precedent. It’s not paranoia. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point

by md2020 4y ago

rainingmonkey 4y ago

> You can’t exercise your right to speech if you can’t buy posters or domain names for your cause. You can’t go to a protest outside of walking distance if you can’t pay for gas in your car, or a bus or train ticket. I think this aught to make us consider the antidemocratic effects of poverty and inequality too.

jqpabc123 4y ago

Your comment is based on unfounded assumptions --- that the current banking system will be subverted and cash will no longer be accepted and due process under the law will become null and void. None of these are being proposed. Implementing all of these would require changing the constitution. In other words, your comment is an example of the paranoia I referred to.

ellopoppit 4y ago
The freezing of bank accounts of political dissidents has precedent in recent history
- jqpabc123 4y ago
  Where these dissidents doing more than just protesting? Perhaps committing crimes by impeding and infringing on the rights of other citizens? Cry me a river of unfounded paranoia.
  - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure Snowden or the schihub founder would be candidates to freezing. Cryptos are really useful for specific edge cases where the law become too retrograde. That is not a huge market, but that is a meaningful one.
  - drdaeman 4y ago
    Well, if we'd step out of "citizens of liberal democracies" scope defined by a parent comment... Then, there's also another story of "freezing of bank accounts of political dissidents" - Mr. Navalny and FBK. Obviously, the government position is that they're criminals who impeded and infringed on the rights of other citizens. It's not that I agree or disagree with your example - honestly, I've no idea, I haven't really tracked that story I presume you're talking about. What I suspect, though, is that ultimately, it's all a matter of trust. Which is a highly subjective matter. What I wanted to say is that it might not exactly be a good idea, tone-wise, to call it a "paranoia", when it's just a matter of disagreement about subjective things.
  - ellopoppit 4y ago
    So you admit there is now recent precedent for people allegedly committing crimes having their bank accounts frozen, without even a public hearing or trial? Dr. King and Gandhi were also committing crimes by "impeding and infringing on the rights of other citizens"
drdaeman 4y ago
> Implementing all of these would require changing the constitution. A statement like this requires being explicit about the country or set of countries in question, narrowing down the set of constitutions that would require amendments. If the legal system of a country does not explicitly require merchants to accept cash (some places do, some don't - just like in some places a merchant may refuse a customer and in some they can't), it is technically possible to create a practically cashless environment without having to explicitly lock anything down explicitly, but merely by creating an incentive to not accept cash. There's barely any practical difference between no one (save a few die-hards acting on a principle) accepting cash because it's inconvenient to deal with (or simply unfashionable, hah) and actually blocking cash acceptance - the model is indeed different but outcome is ultimately the same. For an imaginary extremely powerful and nefarious adversary the former model is even preferential, as it provides a plausible deniability. Whenever there's such and adversary with a will and power to do so is a separate question which I'll intentionally avoid.
- jqpabc123 4y ago
  A statement like this requires being explicit about the country or set of countries in question Since we are talking about a digital dollar the country in question is the USA.
md2020 4y ago
Cashless society is indeed being proposed in the US. During the time when I was in college (at a public university), all university-run businesses switched to cashless. As in, you literally could not pay with cash. They wouldn’t accept it. > Implementing all of these would require changing the constitution This is naïve. Many countries, the US included, have variations of an emergency powers act, where the executive can get around the constitution in some ways. Even without that, though, you still can have things like Operation Choke Point [1], where the government merely makes suggestions/threats to private banks and payment processors to close the accounts associated with things they don’t like. So no, this has precedent. It’s not paranoia. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point