5 ms·

In that position, the government would inevitably try to meddle. Look up Operation Choke Point back in the Obama years, when the government pressured banks to c

In that position, the government would inevitably try to meddle. Look up Operation Choke Point back in the Obama years, when the government pressured banks to cut off a variety of "undesirable" businesses, such as payday lenders, gun dealers, and so on. Cash serves an important purpose. It is a safety valve in case of such extrajudicial overreach. Yeah, because it's private, it also enables some bad stuff (tax dodging, drug trade), but the same can be said about not requiring ID verification to use the internet.

dools 3y ago
Operation Choke Point was run by the government within the framework of the existing banking sector. It was enacted by DoJ (one part of the government) then: "In August 2014, U.S. Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer introduced a bill that would limit law enforcement's ability to restrict access to the banking system as a response against Operation Choke Point.[12]" So it was stopped by Congress, another part of government. The existence or non-existence of cash wouldn't have made a difference to the ability of pay day lenders or firearms dealers to continue operating because I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be able to get access to cash to conduct their business unless they had bank accounts! My point is that a government supplied electronic payment system would make no difference to the ability of a government to engage in anything more or less nefarious than they can already do, and the legislative process is capable of dealing with that (and if it's not, cash won't save you either).
- PumpkinSpice 3y ago
  I'm having trouble parsing your argument, to be honest. In a cashless society, the government has a near-absolute power to shut down or penalize any economic activity it deems undesirable - whether that activity is criminal or not. In a society that permits cash, the government's reach is still long, but not nearly as complete. Unless you always expect governments to be perfectly benevolent and well-attuned to the needs of all social groups, it seems prudent to fight for cash to remain a valid payment choice.
  - junofan 3y ago
    I think the overarching point was that you should trust the government with anything because they have the power to make laws, and if they wanted to make laws that harmed you they would just do that. I disagree, however.
    - dools 3y ago
      No the overarching point was stated pretty clearly as: > ... a government supplied electronic payment system would make no difference to the ability of a government to engage in anything more or less nefarious than they can already do
  - dools 3y ago
    > In a cashless society, the government has a near-absolute power to shut down or penalize any economic activity it deems undesirable - whether that activity is criminal or not. Evidently it can do so in a society with cash also, eg. Operation Choke Point.
shwaj 3y ago
Wandering a bit astray now, but Operation Choke Point 2.0 is currently underway, with the goal of debanking the cryptocurrency industry. Same playbook, different set of undesirable businesses.
- ajkjk 3y ago
  Glad to hear it.
  - shwaj 3y ago
    Yes, let’s cheer on the precedent of unelected bureaucrats exerting control over things we don’t like. That precedent will surely never come back to affect something that we do like </s>
    - ajkjk 3y ago
      That's .. like... the point of government? To do management-y things for the rest of us? It's not, like, a robot. It's people. We can talk to them and influence them.
marcosdumay 3y ago
Nearly every democracy on the world manages to put on their constitution that the government won't meddle with private business without due process. And almost all of those manage to follow that rule. I'm pretty sure the US can do the same if the system is run by the government. That kind of thing only happens there because it's run by private companies.
- whelp_24 3y ago
  The U.S has a lot of things in its constitution, it's like the original constitutional democracy (the UK is uncodified btw). Your trust in government is far far too high.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    > The U.S has a lot of things in its constitution You know... I'm a Brazilian. Our constitution has something around 200 pages. The reactions of US people about their government working is really surprising and hard to understand to me. Anyway, I'm sure that e.g. your postal service does not discriminate between legal business, because there's a rule forbidding it (that one I know that exists). Why do you think such a rule won't work for financial transfers?
    - whelp_24 3y ago
      Rules only work if they exist and they are followed. There is no evidence such a law would be created, we can not even get net neutrality. There is not a lot of evidence this law would be followed, corruption happens all the time, especially in background type things like electronic transactions. Electronic transactions aren't anonymous, and the US certainly doesn't need more surveillance.

dools 3y ago

Operation Choke Point was run by the government within the framework of the existing banking sector. It was enacted by DoJ (one part of the government) then: "In August 2014, U.S. Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer introduced a bill that would limit law enforcement's ability to restrict access to the banking system as a response against Operation Choke Point.[12]" So it was stopped by Congress, another part of government. The existence or non-existence of cash wouldn't have made a difference to the ability of pay day lenders or firearms dealers to continue operating because I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be able to get access to cash to conduct their business unless they had bank accounts! My point is that a government supplied electronic payment system would make no difference to the ability of a government to engage in anything more or less nefarious than they can already do, and the legislative process is capable of dealing with that (and if it's not, cash won't save you either).

PumpkinSpice 3y ago
I'm having trouble parsing your argument, to be honest. In a cashless society, the government has a near-absolute power to shut down or penalize any economic activity it deems undesirable - whether that activity is criminal or not. In a society that permits cash, the government's reach is still long, but not nearly as complete. Unless you always expect governments to be perfectly benevolent and well-attuned to the needs of all social groups, it seems prudent to fight for cash to remain a valid payment choice.
- junofan 3y ago
  I think the overarching point was that you should trust the government with anything because they have the power to make laws, and if they wanted to make laws that harmed you they would just do that. I disagree, however.
  - dools 3y ago
    No the overarching point was stated pretty clearly as: > ... a government supplied electronic payment system would make no difference to the ability of a government to engage in anything more or less nefarious than they can already do
- dools 3y ago
  > In a cashless society, the government has a near-absolute power to shut down or penalize any economic activity it deems undesirable - whether that activity is criminal or not. Evidently it can do so in a society with cash also, eg. Operation Choke Point.

shwaj 3y ago

Wandering a bit astray now, but Operation Choke Point 2.0 is currently underway, with the goal of debanking the cryptocurrency industry. Same playbook, different set of undesirable businesses.

ajkjk 3y ago
Glad to hear it.
- shwaj 3y ago
  Yes, let’s cheer on the precedent of unelected bureaucrats exerting control over things we don’t like. That precedent will surely never come back to affect something that we do like </s>
  - ajkjk 3y ago
    That's .. like... the point of government? To do management-y things for the rest of us? It's not, like, a robot. It's people. We can talk to them and influence them.

marcosdumay 3y ago

Nearly every democracy on the world manages to put on their constitution that the government won't meddle with private business without due process. And almost all of those manage to follow that rule. I'm pretty sure the US can do the same if the system is run by the government. That kind of thing only happens there because it's run by private companies.

whelp_24 3y ago
The U.S has a lot of things in its constitution, it's like the original constitutional democracy (the UK is uncodified btw). Your trust in government is far far too high.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  > The U.S has a lot of things in its constitution You know... I'm a Brazilian. Our constitution has something around 200 pages. The reactions of US people about their government working is really surprising and hard to understand to me. Anyway, I'm sure that e.g. your postal service does not discriminate between legal business, because there's a rule forbidding it (that one I know that exists). Why do you think such a rule won't work for financial transfers?
  - whelp_24 3y ago
    Rules only work if they exist and they are followed. There is no evidence such a law would be created, we can not even get net neutrality. There is not a lot of evidence this law would be followed, corruption happens all the time, especially in background type things like electronic transactions. Electronic transactions aren't anonymous, and the US certainly doesn't need more surveillance.