4 ms·

> Exactly. You do not want to hand the US government the ability to “turn off” someone’s daily life at the press of a button. If you're within the borders of t

> Exactly. You do not want to hand the US government the ability to “turn off” someone’s daily life at the press of a button. If you're within the borders of the US, this ability already exists, they have a monopoly on violence in the country, something the government is very eager to demonstrate this year.

iamnothere 1mo ago
There’s a lot of room between violence and financial isolation. The government has shown multiple times that it is willing to go after otherwise law-abiding citizens who take up disfavored careers, whether it’s gun dealers and payday lenders in Operation Choke Point, cannabis dispensaries in states where it was legal, or online cam girls. In all of these cases, going to cash or using alternatives to the banking system was possible and even necessary for them to survive.
- embedding-shape 1mo ago
  And none of those examples you use, involve SSNs, these are all 100% paperless people/companies? Makes me wonder how they got bank accounts in the first place if they're so disconnected from society.
  - iamnothere 1mo ago
    The individuals had SSNs, but did not have a hypothetical national ID connected to systems that could have been used to fully isolate them. As long as backchannels exist in the system to accommodate those without SSNs/DLs, it is possible to get by even if the system tries to cut you off.
    - embedding-shape 1mo ago
      > As long as backchannels exist in the system to accommodate those without SSNs/DLs, it is possible to get by even if the system tries to cut you off And again, as long as backchannels exists in the system to accommodate those without a Government ID, it is possible to get by even if the system tries to cut you off. Don't you see and understand you already have government ID? You're just calling it by another name...
      - iamnothere 1mo ago
        Once the official ID exists, those backchannels will be cut off, as they have been in much of Europe.
        embedding-shape 1mo ago
        > Once the official ID exists, those backchannels will be cut off, Do you seriously not get it yet? You have IDs now, and you claim those backchannels exists now, and haven't been cut off. Why would calling something something else suddenly make those backchannels be cut off? How come they exists today in the first place then?
        iamnothere 1mo ago
        Official IDs don’t exist now. The “surrogate” IDs (SSN, DLs) are not universal nor mandatory, and there are legal barriers to using them as an official national ID.
        embedding-shape 1mo ago
        So "REAL ID Act of 2005" isn't the creation of a official ID and existed since 2015 or so?
r3trohack3r 1mo ago
> they have a monopoly on violence in the country I have not seen a definition of this that is simultaneously true and useful The sole provider of violence in the U.S. is not the government.
- embedding-shape 1mo ago
  "Monopoly on violence" isn't some new concept I just invented here, it's a established concept about "legal use of force", which the government typically is the sole arbiter of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence Of course many engage in "violence", or "provide it", that is not in doubt.
  - r3trohack3r 1mo ago
    I know it’s not new, thus why I said I’ve never seen a definition that is both true and useful. In the U.S. I can lawfully use violence in many ways under many circumstances. I.E. if you’re in my house and I didn’t invite you there, I can slay you lawfully. In the U.S. the federal government is not the only institution responsible for law making or law enforcement. It is not only entity that can lawfully use violence. Etc.
    - iamnothere 1mo ago
      Not to mention the increasing use of private security and even private police, and the increasing use of military PMCs and privately owned/controlled “kill chain” components like Palantir and Starlink/Starshield.
    - embedding-shape 1mo ago
      > In the U.S. I can lawfully use violence in many ways under many circumstances. I.E. if you’re in my house and I didn’t invite you there, I can slay you lawfully. Yes, and you can do so, because the government and state says it's OK to do so. If they didn't, it wouldn't. This is the core idea. > In the U.S. the federal government is not the only institution responsible for law making or law enforcement. It is not only entity that can lawfully use violence. Etc. Hence the whole "sole arbiter of" and last paragraph in my last comment. All those entities are "allowed to use violence" because your government says it's OK.

iamnothere 1mo ago

There’s a lot of room between violence and financial isolation. The government has shown multiple times that it is willing to go after otherwise law-abiding citizens who take up disfavored careers, whether it’s gun dealers and payday lenders in Operation Choke Point, cannabis dispensaries in states where it was legal, or online cam girls. In all of these cases, going to cash or using alternatives to the banking system was possible and even necessary for them to survive.

embedding-shape 1mo ago
And none of those examples you use, involve SSNs, these are all 100% paperless people/companies? Makes me wonder how they got bank accounts in the first place if they're so disconnected from society.
- iamnothere 1mo ago
  The individuals had SSNs, but did not have a hypothetical national ID connected to systems that could have been used to fully isolate them. As long as backchannels exist in the system to accommodate those without SSNs/DLs, it is possible to get by even if the system tries to cut you off.
  - embedding-shape 1mo ago
    > As long as backchannels exist in the system to accommodate those without SSNs/DLs, it is possible to get by even if the system tries to cut you off And again, as long as backchannels exists in the system to accommodate those without a Government ID, it is possible to get by even if the system tries to cut you off. Don't you see and understand you already have government ID? You're just calling it by another name...
    - iamnothere 1mo ago
      Once the official ID exists, those backchannels will be cut off, as they have been in much of Europe.
      - embedding-shape 1mo ago
        > Once the official ID exists, those backchannels will be cut off, Do you seriously not get it yet? You have IDs now, and you claim those backchannels exists now, and haven't been cut off. Why would calling something something else suddenly make those backchannels be cut off? How come they exists today in the first place then?
        iamnothere 1mo ago
        Official IDs don’t exist now. The “surrogate” IDs (SSN, DLs) are not universal nor mandatory, and there are legal barriers to using them as an official national ID.
        embedding-shape 1mo ago
        So "REAL ID Act of 2005" isn't the creation of a official ID and existed since 2015 or so?

r3trohack3r 1mo ago

> they have a monopoly on violence in the country I have not seen a definition of this that is simultaneously true and useful The sole provider of violence in the U.S. is not the government.

embedding-shape 1mo ago
"Monopoly on violence" isn't some new concept I just invented here, it's a established concept about "legal use of force", which the government typically is the sole arbiter of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence Of course many engage in "violence", or "provide it", that is not in doubt.
- r3trohack3r 1mo ago
  I know it’s not new, thus why I said I’ve never seen a definition that is both true and useful. In the U.S. I can lawfully use violence in many ways under many circumstances. I.E. if you’re in my house and I didn’t invite you there, I can slay you lawfully. In the U.S. the federal government is not the only institution responsible for law making or law enforcement. It is not only entity that can lawfully use violence. Etc.
  - iamnothere 1mo ago
    Not to mention the increasing use of private security and even private police, and the increasing use of military PMCs and privately owned/controlled “kill chain” components like Palantir and Starlink/Starshield.
  - embedding-shape 1mo ago
    > In the U.S. I can lawfully use violence in many ways under many circumstances. I.E. if you’re in my house and I didn’t invite you there, I can slay you lawfully. Yes, and you can do so, because the government and state says it's OK to do so. If they didn't, it wouldn't. This is the core idea. > In the U.S. the federal government is not the only institution responsible for law making or law enforcement. It is not only entity that can lawfully use violence. Etc. Hence the whole "sole arbiter of" and last paragraph in my last comment. All those entities are "allowed to use violence" because your government says it's OK.