3 ms·

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 c

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.

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.