5 ms·

The UK has had rationing before (in wartime, and for some time after) and didn't need a CBDC to implement it. It also already has the power to freeze assets, le

The UK has had rationing before (in wartime, and for some time after) and didn't need a CBDC to implement it. It also already has the power to freeze assets, levy taxes, ban products, introduce license requirements, etc. Why do you think a CBDC makes the government more likely to use its powers in a manner similar to what China and the USSR were doing long before CBDCs were conceived of?

febeling 4y ago
Because you can push a single button and a person is in the cold. There will be no disruption for anyone else, just your one neighbor with the dangerous views can't pay rent and buy food anymore. I can't think of anything more dystopian.
- lottin 4y ago
  Do you understand that by definition a government is able to exert violence against citizens? Surely you must find this more terrifying than the possibility that they might be able to stop someone from making payments.
  - brippalcharrid 4y ago
    They have always been able to do things like this in a targeted way to particular people at some cost as well as at some inconvenience to judges and police officers, but not efficiently, programmatically, instantaneously, at scale, and integrated with the rest of their surveillance infrastructure. This creates similar risks and incentives for politically targeted abuse and the advancement of totalitarian, technocratic forms of government masked by secrecy laws to those presented by the FISA court system.
  - febeling 4y ago
    That’s kind of distorted. Government has the monopoly on violence, true, but only to the extent as the law grants it. A prime focus of constitutional law is to set strict limits to and legal recourse against acts of government.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      [redacted]
      - febeling 4y ago
        That sounds completely unacceptable. With CBDC we would be in an even worse situation, that's my point.
    - lottin 4y ago
      Well, in that case, the same applies to CBDCs, but so far all criticisms of CBDCs assume that the government will use CBDCs as a means of oppression unrestrained by any laws.
      - febeling 4y ago
        Are you saying that it's unlikely that the government might abuse it's power? Look at history.
        lottin 4y ago
        I'm saying that, if we assume that the government will oppress people (that's the assumption that CBDC critics make), it's silly to assume that it WILL use CBDCs to oppress people, and at the same time assume it WON'T use violence to oppress people.
euix 4y ago
Do you want to make it even easier for the government to do that? Sure the government can come to our house tomorrow and seize from us under one charge or another - but there is a price to pay in terms of public opinion and the physicality and limitations of applying coercive force to you. But digital tools, if you made it easy and convenient enough, then it becomes another matter. Justifying extensions of government power with "but they can already do that" is cowardice at best and disingenuous at worst.
- scotty79 4y ago
  Sometimes government needs to do that and when it does it's costly and the cost comes from our collective pocket. So making it easier just saves us money. There's of course argument that if it's easier it will do it more often so it costs more. But that's something that will need to be controlled through political system. Basically development of humanity is making forms of oppression increasingly more painless and predictable to both the oppressor and the oppressed. Predictability and painlessness is good for business so we thrive. You can't get rid of oppression. Humans will always divide into the ones that hoard power and those who don't with former living off the latter. Best we can do and the best we've actually done is to make this process as painless and as predictable as possible. Currently we are at the stage of territorially divided monopolies on violence. We learned in world wars that "territorially divided" is a very important part.
  - euix 4y ago
    Starting to go off topic but, there is no such thing as painless oppression or making it "less painful". You can view the matter in abstract from a distance like this, but if it ever falls on you or your family then it becomes a different matter. We can all view the matter impersonally and without passion, the philosophizing stops the moment it lands on our own heads - and I don't believe one can go through life without ever being on the wrong end of that.
    - scotty79 4y ago
      > there is no such thing as painless oppression or making it "less painful" What kind of opression do you prefer? Filling a tax form every year and paying what you calculated under the threat of arrest (while telling yourself you are voluntarily contributing to society and less fortunate) or being raided by a warband with guns on random intervals taking whatever they please and leaving you only what they at the time believe will let you bounce back so they can raid you again sometime in the future? Either you are one who enacts or profits from violence or you are affected and robbed by violence. It's a constant setup since the beginning of the human race (or even before that). The only change that evolution of civilization delivers is making the violence predictable and gradual, thus less painfull, thus allowing for more efficient economic activity. If you make oppressors work harder for their cut they'll just take more from you once they do take it.

febeling 4y ago

Because you can push a single button and a person is in the cold. There will be no disruption for anyone else, just your one neighbor with the dangerous views can't pay rent and buy food anymore. I can't think of anything more dystopian.

lottin 4y ago
Do you understand that by definition a government is able to exert violence against citizens? Surely you must find this more terrifying than the possibility that they might be able to stop someone from making payments.
- brippalcharrid 4y ago
  They have always been able to do things like this in a targeted way to particular people at some cost as well as at some inconvenience to judges and police officers, but not efficiently, programmatically, instantaneously, at scale, and integrated with the rest of their surveillance infrastructure. This creates similar risks and incentives for politically targeted abuse and the advancement of totalitarian, technocratic forms of government masked by secrecy laws to those presented by the FISA court system.
- febeling 4y ago
  That’s kind of distorted. Government has the monopoly on violence, true, but only to the extent as the law grants it. A prime focus of constitutional law is to set strict limits to and legal recourse against acts of government.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    [redacted]
    - febeling 4y ago
      That sounds completely unacceptable. With CBDC we would be in an even worse situation, that's my point.
  - lottin 4y ago
    Well, in that case, the same applies to CBDCs, but so far all criticisms of CBDCs assume that the government will use CBDCs as a means of oppression unrestrained by any laws.
    - febeling 4y ago
      Are you saying that it's unlikely that the government might abuse it's power? Look at history.
      - lottin 4y ago
        I'm saying that, if we assume that the government will oppress people (that's the assumption that CBDC critics make), it's silly to assume that it WILL use CBDCs to oppress people, and at the same time assume it WON'T use violence to oppress people.

euix 4y ago

Do you want to make it even easier for the government to do that? Sure the government can come to our house tomorrow and seize from us under one charge or another - but there is a price to pay in terms of public opinion and the physicality and limitations of applying coercive force to you. But digital tools, if you made it easy and convenient enough, then it becomes another matter. Justifying extensions of government power with "but they can already do that" is cowardice at best and disingenuous at worst.

scotty79 4y ago
Sometimes government needs to do that and when it does it's costly and the cost comes from our collective pocket. So making it easier just saves us money. There's of course argument that if it's easier it will do it more often so it costs more. But that's something that will need to be controlled through political system. Basically development of humanity is making forms of oppression increasingly more painless and predictable to both the oppressor and the oppressed. Predictability and painlessness is good for business so we thrive. You can't get rid of oppression. Humans will always divide into the ones that hoard power and those who don't with former living off the latter. Best we can do and the best we've actually done is to make this process as painless and as predictable as possible. Currently we are at the stage of territorially divided monopolies on violence. We learned in world wars that "territorially divided" is a very important part.
- euix 4y ago
  Starting to go off topic but, there is no such thing as painless oppression or making it "less painful". You can view the matter in abstract from a distance like this, but if it ever falls on you or your family then it becomes a different matter. We can all view the matter impersonally and without passion, the philosophizing stops the moment it lands on our own heads - and I don't believe one can go through life without ever being on the wrong end of that.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    > there is no such thing as painless oppression or making it "less painful" What kind of opression do you prefer? Filling a tax form every year and paying what you calculated under the threat of arrest (while telling yourself you are voluntarily contributing to society and less fortunate) or being raided by a warband with guns on random intervals taking whatever they please and leaving you only what they at the time believe will let you bounce back so they can raid you again sometime in the future? Either you are one who enacts or profits from violence or you are affected and robbed by violence. It's a constant setup since the beginning of the human race (or even before that). The only change that evolution of civilization delivers is making the violence predictable and gradual, thus less painfull, thus allowing for more efficient economic activity. If you make oppressors work harder for their cut they'll just take more from you once they do take it.