5 ms·
If the only argument against getting rid of cash is that it would make it harder to commit crimes, that sounds like a good reason to get rid of cash. I like ca
by medler 3y ago
If the only argument against getting rid of cash is that it would make it harder to commit crimes, that sounds like a good reason to get rid of cash.
I like cash because I like my privacy but cash making it easier to do crime is an unfortunate side effect, not an end in itself.
- b800h 3y agoDisagree with any laws?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- standardUser 3y agoMany people see laws against victmimless activities to be a direct curtailment of basic human rights. Even in our own lifetime we've seen completely arbitrary changes to which substances and banned or not banned, so we should be extremely wary of future, similarly arbitrary changes (that we can easily get around using cash).
- Daz1 3y agoThere is no such thing as a 'victimless activity' so your point is moot.
- standardUser 3y agoYour point is lame and pedantic.
- harimau777 3y agoThe problem is that the government often creates crimes that citizens don't agree with. Or the majority uses the law to try to force their preferences on the minority.
- medler 3y agoSo should everyone simply disregard any laws they disagree with, provided they can get away with it? Where does it end?
- b800h 3y agoWith laws being changed, unlike in totalitarian regimes.
- standardUser 3y agoI think the depends entirely on if the "crime" has a victim or otherwise causes severe problems to society. Though those problems should probably be more severe than then the problems caused by trying and failing to ban a victimless crime, which always creates a black market (and associated violence, which does have victims).
- realce 3y agoIt doesn't "end" whatsoever. Your notion of it ending means total governmental control or total anarchy. Life is in the middle of the two, the resting point is a continuous balance of two extremes. It's not simple to disregard laws, it's risky and makes you vulnerable.
- harimau777 3y agoAt least in America, there's not a lot of alternatives. The system is setup in a way that favors minoritarian rule (particularly, but not exclusively by the rural) and lobbyists. Unfortunately, that means that diregarding laws that they disagree with is often the only way to represent the will of the people.
- sebzim4500 3y agoObviously yes. If you don't agree with a law and there is close to no chance of getting caught then why follow it?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- iggldiggl 3y agoUnfortunately it seems that digitalisation often removes a former middle ground and forces a choice between two extremes – like in this case either total privacy, or total surveillance, and there's no choice in-between.