4 ms·
You don’t need to control an individual. You need to control the population as a whole. Which governments do now, with taxes and other policies.
by f6v 4y ago
You don’t need to control an individual. You need to control the population as a whole. Which governments do now, with taxes and other policies.
- yownie 4y agowell met, nothing you just wrote addresses what OP asked.
- no_time 4y ago>You don’t need to control an individual. People who lived in Warsaw pact countries where you could only buy meat with a "ticket" would disagree with this. There is a very real desire in the ruling class to be this invasive.
- jevgeni 4y ago... in a planned economy.
- thepangolino 4y ago[dead]
- tastyfreeze 4y agoWhich is the inevitable result of a CBDC. There is no way that a government can resist the temptation of control that CBDCs permit.
- int_19h 4y agoThere is an increasingly popular sentiment in the West that dealing with income inequality and climate change requires an economy that is planned to a significant extent.
- sebow 4y agoThere's a little dichotomy here. If you try to control the population as a whole "head-on" you'd get decent backlash, especially in countries where such moves have been rejected.[Anecdotally i can speak only for EE] However if you try to convince the masses at an individual level, (i.e a bottom-> top approach) you can have more success, assuming you do this in a paced manner and not rush the tyranny (because that would be obvious). Nowadays the latter approach 'works' because most people have low attention span and such grifts go mostly unnoticed, or at least enforced with pretexts like security, protect the kids, etc. The gov. vs the individual is an uneven fight. The same cannot be said about the gov. vs the people.