- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- technews@radiation.party
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- technews@radiation.party
You must log in or # to comment.
The attachment to cash is something I’ll never understand.
It’s easy - tax evasion, money laundering, secret financing of things you wouldn’t want others to know. All perfectly fine reasons to fight for.
Cashless society is a controlled society. While some may misuse cash for illicit activities, many prefer it to protect privacy, maintain personal control, or avoid digital vulnerabilities. Dismissing cash usage solely for nefarious reasons overlooks legitimate concerns and individual freedoms, and equates privacy with wrongdoing, a perspective that might inadvertently erode fundamental rights and personal autonomy.
This is all technically true but cash is not the answer.
Right now there are so many easily accessible ways for governments to spy on people (cell phone geolocation, call metadata monitoring) that I’m not sure that for the purposes you think of you aren’t screwed already anyway. From this perspective fight for cash use becomes a bit theoretical.
The only people that I know of personally that are strongly for cash are either people that frequently skirt around taxes (“minor” stuff like car repair shops) and unfortunately conspiracy nuts. Genuine privacy oriented people exist but realistically the majority will be there for selfish reasons.
The societal cost of tax evasion, money laundering and financing organisations that legally require transparency (political orgs, NGOs etc) are massive and immediate.
What we really need is strong oversight of institutions, government transparency, rule of law and healthy democracy. Those are the things you want to enshrine in your constitution.
I agree that makes sense and is highly needed, but I always remember the civilization-old question “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (“Who will guard the guards themselves?” or “Who watches the watchmen?”). Balancing privacy with oversight is complex. Cash offers an option for privacy and autonomy. Striking a balance between individual rights and societal needs requires thoughtful governance, not necessarily the elimination of choices like cash that some citizens may rely on.
Building complex systems involving humans is hard because humans are flawed. The best thing we’ve come up so far are systems involving extensive checks and balances to prevent thing happening too rapidly and without necessary oversight and even then it’s a tricky part to balance.
For the record, I’m not for entirely cashless society but organisations that are cash heavy have proven to be source of many headaches. There is a balance to be found on thresholds and barring some types of businesses from using cash and where digital money transfer is required. Banks and other money transfer entities will have to deal with scenarios where malicious parties will try to obfuscate their intent outside of those thresholds.
I agree with you on the need for a balanced approach, recognizing both the utility and potential issues with cash. Checks and balances in financial systems are vital.
Thank you for a thoughtful and engaging conversation on this complex matter. Your insights have certainly added depth to my understanding. Let’s continue to advocate for responsible and balanced policies.
Right now there are so many easily accessible ways for governments to spy on people (cell phone geolocation, call metadata monitoring)
We don’t have to get rid of the other one, just because we gladly abolished the first already.
Also, I am still free to leave my cell phone at home, or anywhere else, while I am cheating on my wife.Genuine privacy oriented people exist but realistically the majority will be there for selfish reasons.
Do you have any reliable source for this? I’d argue that the majority of people just want privacy. It is not up to the state nor tech companies to see what you buy, where, when, and how much you pay. This is not democracy. It is its opposite. Once this data is collected, it will be used to your disadvantage sooner or later.
I prefaced this with disclaimer that’s a personal experience. It’s probably hard to measure because people aren’t that eager to self report tax avoidance.
It is government’s interest though. Hence extensive AML regulations for example.
deleted by creator
My gut tells me cash should be some kind of baseline. A hedge against digitally enforced tyranny. One should not be forced to use “technology” (beyond that which needs to exist for a cash based system?) to interact with the larger economy.
Privacy. My bank doesn’t need to know about every purchase I make.
Valid, I guess. Still I would love a law that if you accept cash, you have to accept electronical money as well.
Research Central Bank-issued Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and specifically the so called “programmable money” parts of them. Central Banks and states are creating stuff like money that has an expiration date or that can only be spent on certain approved products and services.
Cash is privacy and no one can estimate your “climate footprint” based on its use while their class keeps on riding their private jets to World Economic Forum and other oligarch conferences.
This is not some futuristic stuff. All big countries are heavily invested in CBDCs, have pilot programs and some are already using them.
Cash already has an expiration date…
I mean, that’s a thing for quite some time, except now it’s moving digital. Here we have something like food tickets (can’t think of better translation now) which are untaxed and can’t be used for stuff like cigarettes, alcohol, gambling etc. And they have an expiration date. Every company here has to provide its employees with either a company cantina (is that the correct word?) or the “food tickets”.
What’s creepy and disgusting now can quickly turn absolutely dystopian soon. Image states pairing up these systems with social/climate credits and possibly AI. I don’t get why this is mainly debated in loony right-wing circles when it’s clearly something that’s technically feasible, and if not yet, then it’s just a matter of time.
I think that implementing food tickets, unless there are significant environmental concerns such as war, post-war situations, or famine, could have various benefits. But I see no benefits for the receivers of these food tickets. Unless if they are horribly underpaid which is actually a bigger issue.
The benefit is basically untaxed “money” - by law every company has to provide food for its employees for cheap. Think like $5 for a really big portion of good food. Some companies don’t have the means to provide it so they give the employees food tickets instead.
That is an excellent observation.
Could you please provide more information about the current shortage that is preventing working individuals from being able to purchase food or have access to nearby dining establishments like cantina for lunch? What about individuals who are currently unemployed? Will they need to use their savings for groceries, or is it necessary to be employed at all times, similar to the situations in North Korea or China?
No shortage, we just have laws that think about people’s well-being, which might seem weird to people from some countries. Unemployed people get unemployment money for some time (I’m not sure how long, it used to be 6 months, but I never needed this, so I’m not sure if anything changed in the last 15 or so years), provided they worked for some specific amount of time prior (I don’t know how long). If you have savings, you can use savings, obviously. Not sure what your deal is, but I live in an EU country, which is not similar to China or North Korea at all.
I prefer cash in situations where alcohol is involved. I can decide in advance a cash amount and when that’s done I’m done. That’s not easy counting up receipts. If you even get them as om noticing a trend were in a load of places if you don’t ask for one you don’t get.
Sounds like you have an alcohol problem and you need proper help
Not really.
I go out like once every 2-3 months tending to be in big groups where its easy to lose track.
Also the price of a pint in Edinburgh is ridiculous you can easily be £100 a round when the whole team is there
Edit. I see where uour coming from without context but it’s a simple case of “I don’t have to worry about it” if I have paper over plastic
People in his party are known for receiving suitcases of cash (here, search for suitcase). Of course, they want to protect that.
By the way, Grasser was never sentenced for that, because while it’s fishy as hell, it’s not illegal, as long as the money can’t be traced in either direction. At least he got thrown into jail for other corruption offenses in 2020, after about 15 years of court proceedings.
This is a very good idea, I’m completely on board with this in my country as well.
Ach, Nee, Hammer.
He’s an idiot.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
BERLIN (AP) — Austria’s leader is proposing to enshrine in the country’s constitution a right to use cash, which remains more popular in the Alpine nation than in many other places.
Chancellor Karl Nehammer said in a statement on Friday that “more and more people are concerned that cash could be restricted as a means of payment in Austria.” His office said that the “uncertainty” is fueled by contradictory information and reports.
While payments by card and electronic methods have become increasingly dominant in many European countries, Austria and neighboring Germany remain relatively attached to cash.
Protecting cash against supposed threats has been a demand of the far-right opposition Freedom Party, which has led polls in Austria in recent months.
The biggest opposition party in the current parliament, the center-left Social Democrats, has called for at least one ATM in every municipality and accused Nehammer of “pure populism.”
“Even if we write the word ‘cash’ into the constitution 100 times, there won’t be a single ATM more in Austria,” said the head of its parliamentary group, Philip Kucher.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
While I do agree that cash is very handy, that sort of thing doesn’t belong in a constitution.
Things like that are fairly normal in constitutions in Europe
Have you got any examples? I checked the Spanish and Portuguese ones (because I can read the original text) and the Swiss one (which seems the most likely to do that sort of thing) and they don’t mention something like that.
For example the Swiss one includes this:
The Confederation shall ensure the adequate, universal and reasonably priced provision of postal and telecommunications services in all regions of the country.
So similarly it could say:
The Confederation shall ensure the adequate, universal and reasonable availability and acceptance provision of cash in all regions of the country.
Or let’s look at this one:
[The Cantons] shall ensure the provision of an adequate basic education that is available to all children. Basic education is mandatory and is managed or supervised by the state.
Which could similarly read:
[The Cantons] shall ensure the availability of adequate forms of cash that is available to everyone. Acceptance of cash is mandatory and is supervised by the state.
There are also several articles where the Confederation shall encourage things (e.g. education in music and sport) or promote things (e.g. research) so it could also say to encourage/promote usage/acceptance of cash.
Anyway, we can write into our constitutions pretty much whatever we like. Unlike in the US where the constitution is considered untouchable, we essentially treat it like just another law book.
Education and access to communications are fundamental rights, unlike access to cash. You can live a perfectly normal life without ever touching a single coin.
Of course you can write that in the constitution, but that’s just a populist measure of which the Swiss constitution is full of.
I didn’t say it was the correct place, I just said it’s common, to which you agree in your last sentence.
I just said it’s common, to which you agree in your last sentence.
It’s common in Switzerland. You said it was common in all of Europe.
