4 ms·
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 ac
by 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 agoI 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 agoNo 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.