3 ms·

> Purchasing a business, a vehicle, a property These purchases are already so bound up with red tape that making the actual payment via bank transfer is hardly

> Purchasing a business, a vehicle, a property These purchases are already so bound up with red tape that making the actual payment via bank transfer is hardly an inconvenience. > hush money Extortion is a crime. You are listing a person’s attempt to placate a criminal as a reason the state shouldn’t get involved? > avoiding a lawsuit Few places are so litigious as the USA, and such concerns hardly register for the people living in the subject of this HN post.

tomrod 3y ago
> These purchases are already so bound up with red tape that making the actual payment via bank transfer is hardly an inconvenience. That's a separate problem that allowing overeager regulation of currency utilization enables. > Extortion is a crime. You are listing a person’s attempt to placate a criminal as a reason the state shouldn’t get involved? Correct, extortion is a crime in some locales. Note, I said hush money, not extortion. > Few places are so litigious as the USA, and such concerns hardly register for the people living in the subject of this HN post. Few as litigious as the USA _so far_. ------- A better set of questions here: who benefits, and by how much, with regulating currency so tightly?
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  > That's a separate problem that allowing overeager regulation of currency utilization enables. Now it seems like you are resorting to the libertarian fantasizing that used to be so common on news-for-nerds sites. > Note, I said hush money, not extortion. Threatening to go public with a story when the other party might feel compelled to pay hush money, is already viewed as extortion. > Few as litigious as the USA _so far_. The special litigiousness of the USA is due to a number of longstanding factors including its inherited common-law system that differs from most other developed countries. It is not clear why you would expect other countries to become as litigious anytime soon. > A better set of questions here: who benefits, and by how much, with regulating currency so tightly? The general public who can be sure that taxes are being paid fairly and they are receiving the services they should. Again, not all countries are as culturally forgiving of tax evasion as Americans, let alone those places with even less controls over the flow of cash than the USA.
  - tomrod 3y ago
    >> That's a separate problem that allowing overeager regulation of currency utilization enables. > Now it seems like you are resorting to the libertarian fantasizing that used to be so common on news-for-nerds sites. As I see no reason it is a fantasy, I'll continue "resorting" to the reality that, frankly, the entity able to put me to death legally probably doesn't need to know my reasons and justifications for every action I take, respectfully. If that makes me a left-libertarian, then so be it. Respectfully, sounds like you might have some hangups with discussing points that have overlap in classical liberal philosophies, throwing out legitimate discussion with the baby and bathwater. >> Note, I said hush money, not extortion. > Threatening to go public with a story when the other party might feel compelled to pay hush money, is already viewed as extortion. Payment for private services, like sexual services, are common in Europe and likely preferred to be kept private. I believe you would view this as legalized extortion.Yet, the desire for discretion exists even when the "threat" of information being public isn't necessarily blackmail. > The general public who can be sure that taxes are being paid fairly and they are receiving the services they should. Again, not all countries are as culturally forgiving of tax evasion as Americans, let alone those places with even less controls over the flow of cash than the USA. That's a weird way to spell "banks and financial institutions." There are plenty on controls already on the impoverished and middle class. A blunt hammer like this gums up transaction processing and allows for additional regulatory capture by banks and financial institutions.
    - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
      > the entity able to put me to death legally The country that is the subject of this HN post does not have the death penalty. > That's a weird way to spell "banks and financial institutions." ’Cause I wasn’t spelling that. Within welfare states, public will to minimize tax evasion is widespread. In Europe steps are already being taken to improve transaction processing and democratize this area of the banking industry, so there isn’t necessarily the “gumming up” of the works and regulatory capture that you assume. If things don’t look so good in your country, I’m afraid that’s your problem to sort out.
      - 3y ago
- pasc1878 3y ago
  Tax payers benefit. There are not transactions that avoid paying cash - they are reported to the tax authorities - so tax payers pay less. Hush Money - these means something is being covered up - this would be better in the open - what ios the difference to balckmail.
  - tomrod 3y ago
    Addressed in other comment a few hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37237018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37237018

tomrod 3y ago

> These purchases are already so bound up with red tape that making the actual payment via bank transfer is hardly an inconvenience. That's a separate problem that allowing overeager regulation of currency utilization enables. > Extortion is a crime. You are listing a person’s attempt to placate a criminal as a reason the state shouldn’t get involved? Correct, extortion is a crime in some locales. Note, I said hush money, not extortion. > Few places are so litigious as the USA, and such concerns hardly register for the people living in the subject of this HN post. Few as litigious as the USA _so far_. ------- A better set of questions here: who benefits, and by how much, with regulating currency so tightly?

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
> That's a separate problem that allowing overeager regulation of currency utilization enables. Now it seems like you are resorting to the libertarian fantasizing that used to be so common on news-for-nerds sites. > Note, I said hush money, not extortion. Threatening to go public with a story when the other party might feel compelled to pay hush money, is already viewed as extortion. > Few as litigious as the USA _so far_. The special litigiousness of the USA is due to a number of longstanding factors including its inherited common-law system that differs from most other developed countries. It is not clear why you would expect other countries to become as litigious anytime soon. > A better set of questions here: who benefits, and by how much, with regulating currency so tightly? The general public who can be sure that taxes are being paid fairly and they are receiving the services they should. Again, not all countries are as culturally forgiving of tax evasion as Americans, let alone those places with even less controls over the flow of cash than the USA.
- tomrod 3y ago
  >> That's a separate problem that allowing overeager regulation of currency utilization enables. > Now it seems like you are resorting to the libertarian fantasizing that used to be so common on news-for-nerds sites. As I see no reason it is a fantasy, I'll continue "resorting" to the reality that, frankly, the entity able to put me to death legally probably doesn't need to know my reasons and justifications for every action I take, respectfully. If that makes me a left-libertarian, then so be it. Respectfully, sounds like you might have some hangups with discussing points that have overlap in classical liberal philosophies, throwing out legitimate discussion with the baby and bathwater. >> Note, I said hush money, not extortion. > Threatening to go public with a story when the other party might feel compelled to pay hush money, is already viewed as extortion. Payment for private services, like sexual services, are common in Europe and likely preferred to be kept private. I believe you would view this as legalized extortion.Yet, the desire for discretion exists even when the "threat" of information being public isn't necessarily blackmail. > The general public who can be sure that taxes are being paid fairly and they are receiving the services they should. Again, not all countries are as culturally forgiving of tax evasion as Americans, let alone those places with even less controls over the flow of cash than the USA. That's a weird way to spell "banks and financial institutions." There are plenty on controls already on the impoverished and middle class. A blunt hammer like this gums up transaction processing and allows for additional regulatory capture by banks and financial institutions.
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    > the entity able to put me to death legally The country that is the subject of this HN post does not have the death penalty. > That's a weird way to spell "banks and financial institutions." ’Cause I wasn’t spelling that. Within welfare states, public will to minimize tax evasion is widespread. In Europe steps are already being taken to improve transaction processing and democratize this area of the banking industry, so there isn’t necessarily the “gumming up” of the works and regulatory capture that you assume. If things don’t look so good in your country, I’m afraid that’s your problem to sort out.
    - 3y ago
pasc1878 3y ago
Tax payers benefit. There are not transactions that avoid paying cash - they are reported to the tax authorities - so tax payers pay less. Hush Money - these means something is being covered up - this would be better in the open - what ios the difference to balckmail.
- tomrod 3y ago
  Addressed in other comment a few hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37237018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37237018