8 ms·

...then don't buy things from those businesses? We need a stronger reason than "I want that" to force businesses to give us things — otherwise how do we decide

...then don't buy things from those businesses? We need a stronger reason than "I want that" to force businesses to give us things — otherwise how do we decide whose preferences we should mandate?

kxrm 3y ago
I specifically do avoid any business that is cashless. I appreciate any business that puts a sign up claiming to be cashless so that I can specifically avoid doing business with them.
- Findecanor 3y ago
  I used to have that position, but here in Sweden the cashless have won and there is nobody who even cares to uphold the law. The same could happen elsewhere. It is pretty much only the civil defence authority that encourages use of cash, because they are aware of the incessant hacking attacks that could disrupt the system at any moment. Cash has become less convenient for consumers: businesses refusing to take cash made it even more so.
  - theshrike79 3y ago
    Finn here. I haven’t used cash since Covid, it’s all card-based. I do carry emergency cash with me, but it’s been in my wallet for 2 years now.
    - sofixa 3y ago
      I visited Sweden and Denmark recently, and only coming home did I realise I didn't use any cash so don't have any for my "leftover cash and coins from places abroad I've travelled to" collection.
dwallin 3y ago
Ideally you decide by voting. It’s either that or you decide things by who has the most money / power / guns.
- lazzlazzlazz 3y ago
  Even assuming otherwise ideal conditions, choosing between two (mostly similar) political parties doesn't contain enough expressive power. Choosing goods in markets does. It's a computation problem as much as anything else.
- maximilianroos 3y ago
  Right — we could decide whether each transaction should take place by voting on it. But that would be really inefficient! So instead, we generally let people trade with each other as long as it doesn't intrude on others. Not sure whether Sweetgreen choosing to go cashless is an example of "decide things by who has the most money / power / guns."?
  - nottheengineer 3y ago
    It is an example of who has the most power. If you don't have a different service that does the same for you, you'll have to suck it up or live without the service. This becomes a big issue as soon as all services in a specific niche do 'the thing', be it refusing cash or stuff like removing headphone jacks. At that point, what are you gonna do? Stop using products from that niche altogether?
    - tylersmith 3y ago
      The options are stop using them, provide them for yourself, or use the government to force others to provide it for you. Only the first two are remotely reasonable to people without entitlement issues.
      - achenet 3y ago
        With the example of smartphones not having headphone jacks - speaking from personal experience, life is harder without a smartphone. I was smartphone free for a year and ended up having to get one to use an app for a specific government service. And providing a smartphone for myself... I lack the technical knowhow to design one, and I don't think I have enough cash or connections to get one custom built. Ironically enough, I'd be okay with government regulations mandating a headphone jack in phones.
komali2 3y ago
Without State intervention there's nothing stopping businesses colluding to all go cashless. Or... all together do something else that's bad for us. Or monopolizing. The strong enough reason is "it's better for the people." It's easy how we decide whose preferences we mandate - we mandate people's preferences, and businesses find ways to make money within those constraints. There's no issue making profit like this, so I'm not sure where the concern is. Profits slightly dented for a second? Oh well.
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  There is, it's called starting your own business. And the only thing stopping that is... state intervention.
  - dwb 3y ago
    That might solve it for the one business “you” start. It doesn’t address the collusion of everyone else, does it?
- maximilianroos 3y ago
  Right, no one is rejecting the notion of regulation. But personal preferences are a bad way to choose regulation — businesses can aggregate preferences much better than the state can.
  - bigtunacan 3y ago
    It isn't about preference. It's well understood that refusing cash payments has an outsized impact on both the impoverished and underrepresented classes. One easy way to keep the homeless from coming in to make purchases is to refuse cash payments. The government's job isn't to cater to business preferences it is to look out for the well-being of the people.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > The government's job isn't to cater to business preferences it is to look out for the well-being of the people. Businesses are also run by people. Everything is people. The difference here is the government wants to impose cost on businesses to solve problems it should be solving. It could solve them by issuing every homeless person with a credit card that gets topped up by X a month. It would rather just write a rule, take the credit, and have someone else pay all the costs.
wiml 3y ago
There's a whole field of study and endeavor called "politics" which is concerned with this very question! Check it out!
ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
How about "This note is a legal tender at its face value for all debts public and private"?
bagels 3y ago
There is an element of injustice, the poor and immigrants may not have the same access to banks and credit as others do.
- shapefrog 3y ago
  Unironically, those that rage against "The Cashless Society" also rage against "the poor and immigrants".
  - LocalH 3y ago
    You would be incorrectly generalizing. I believe cash is a pillar of a stable society, and I also believe that the way most Western nations treat their homeless and poor is varying degrees of bad and disgusting.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  They have access to alternate options for where they shop.
  - pyrale 3y ago
    Have you seriously tried that "alternate option" you offer?
- cornholio 3y ago
  Perhaps we should fix that? I mean, if you can't get banking services, how exactly are you participate in the modern economy? Is it a good idea forcing homeless to deal with cash, when they are the most vulnerable population to drug abuse? How can they safely save to prepare some solution for their situation? So many questions, with "how will you buy your coffee" very low in the order of priority. Electronic money remittance should be seen as a basic human right. Seems like neither side really cares about these people, but they make a useful rhetorical prop.
  - bagels 3y ago
    No reason can't we have both cash and full free access to electronic payments.

...then don't buy things from those businesses? We need a stronger reason than "I want that" to force businesses to give us things — otherwise how do we decide whose preferences we should mandate?

kxrm 3y ago

I specifically do avoid any business that is cashless. I appreciate any business that puts a sign up claiming to be cashless so that I can specifically avoid doing business with them.

Findecanor 3y ago
I used to have that position, but here in Sweden the cashless have won and there is nobody who even cares to uphold the law. The same could happen elsewhere. It is pretty much only the civil defence authority that encourages use of cash, because they are aware of the incessant hacking attacks that could disrupt the system at any moment. Cash has become less convenient for consumers: businesses refusing to take cash made it even more so.
- theshrike79 3y ago
  Finn here. I haven’t used cash since Covid, it’s all card-based. I do carry emergency cash with me, but it’s been in my wallet for 2 years now.
  - sofixa 3y ago
    I visited Sweden and Denmark recently, and only coming home did I realise I didn't use any cash so don't have any for my "leftover cash and coins from places abroad I've travelled to" collection.

dwallin 3y ago

Ideally you decide by voting. It’s either that or you decide things by who has the most money / power / guns.

lazzlazzlazz 3y ago
Even assuming otherwise ideal conditions, choosing between two (mostly similar) political parties doesn't contain enough expressive power. Choosing goods in markets does. It's a computation problem as much as anything else.
maximilianroos 3y ago
Right — we could decide whether each transaction should take place by voting on it. But that would be really inefficient! So instead, we generally let people trade with each other as long as it doesn't intrude on others. Not sure whether Sweetgreen choosing to go cashless is an example of "decide things by who has the most money / power / guns."?
- nottheengineer 3y ago
  It is an example of who has the most power. If you don't have a different service that does the same for you, you'll have to suck it up or live without the service. This becomes a big issue as soon as all services in a specific niche do 'the thing', be it refusing cash or stuff like removing headphone jacks. At that point, what are you gonna do? Stop using products from that niche altogether?
  - tylersmith 3y ago
    The options are stop using them, provide them for yourself, or use the government to force others to provide it for you. Only the first two are remotely reasonable to people without entitlement issues.
    - achenet 3y ago
      With the example of smartphones not having headphone jacks - speaking from personal experience, life is harder without a smartphone. I was smartphone free for a year and ended up having to get one to use an app for a specific government service. And providing a smartphone for myself... I lack the technical knowhow to design one, and I don't think I have enough cash or connections to get one custom built. Ironically enough, I'd be okay with government regulations mandating a headphone jack in phones.

komali2 3y ago

Without State intervention there's nothing stopping businesses colluding to all go cashless. Or... all together do something else that's bad for us. Or monopolizing. The strong enough reason is "it's better for the people." It's easy how we decide whose preferences we mandate - we mandate people's preferences, and businesses find ways to make money within those constraints. There's no issue making profit like this, so I'm not sure where the concern is. Profits slightly dented for a second? Oh well.

Ferret7446 3y ago
There is, it's called starting your own business. And the only thing stopping that is... state intervention.
- dwb 3y ago
  That might solve it for the one business “you” start. It doesn’t address the collusion of everyone else, does it?
maximilianroos 3y ago
Right, no one is rejecting the notion of regulation. But personal preferences are a bad way to choose regulation — businesses can aggregate preferences much better than the state can.
- bigtunacan 3y ago
  It isn't about preference. It's well understood that refusing cash payments has an outsized impact on both the impoverished and underrepresented classes. One easy way to keep the homeless from coming in to make purchases is to refuse cash payments. The government's job isn't to cater to business preferences it is to look out for the well-being of the people.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > The government's job isn't to cater to business preferences it is to look out for the well-being of the people. Businesses are also run by people. Everything is people. The difference here is the government wants to impose cost on businesses to solve problems it should be solving. It could solve them by issuing every homeless person with a credit card that gets topped up by X a month. It would rather just write a rule, take the credit, and have someone else pay all the costs.

wiml 3y ago

There's a whole field of study and endeavor called "politics" which is concerned with this very question! Check it out!

ThrowawayTestr 3y ago

How about "This note is a legal tender at its face value for all debts public and private"?

bagels 3y ago

There is an element of injustice, the poor and immigrants may not have the same access to banks and credit as others do.

shapefrog 3y ago
Unironically, those that rage against "The Cashless Society" also rage against "the poor and immigrants".
- LocalH 3y ago
  You would be incorrectly generalizing. I believe cash is a pillar of a stable society, and I also believe that the way most Western nations treat their homeless and poor is varying degrees of bad and disgusting.
hackernewds 3y ago
They have access to alternate options for where they shop.
- pyrale 3y ago
  Have you seriously tried that "alternate option" you offer?
cornholio 3y ago
Perhaps we should fix that? I mean, if you can't get banking services, how exactly are you participate in the modern economy? Is it a good idea forcing homeless to deal with cash, when they are the most vulnerable population to drug abuse? How can they safely save to prepare some solution for their situation? So many questions, with "how will you buy your coffee" very low in the order of priority. Electronic money remittance should be seen as a basic human right. Seems like neither side really cares about these people, but they make a useful rhetorical prop.
- bagels 3y ago
  No reason can't we have both cash and full free access to electronic payments.