Digital currency a threat to freedom?!

[pecksniff]

I encountered this very strange editorial in Newsweek.

If the Federal Reserve adopts a central bank digital dollar, the American government will be on a surefire path to authoritarianism.

Central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs, have caught the Fed's attention in recent months as the agency explores developing a digital dollar based on the blockchain, fueled by the meteoric rise in popularity of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. While some compare CBDCs with Bitcoin as CBDCs can be based on the blockchain, similarities between the two end there. In fact, CBDCs are a wolf in sheep's clothing, co-opting Bitcoin's appeal while undermining every one of its underlying principles.

A CBDC adopted by the U.S. government would involve digitally represented dollars sidled with all of the issues of fiat currency that Bitcoin was created to solve—with a sinister new spin: by centralizing Americans' financial information and holdings in a digital database controlled by the U.S. government, CBDCs would create an authoritarian surveillance state and constitute a severe overreach of government power. With an American CBDC, the government would become both money printer and bank, destroying any checks and balances to the governments' power over Americans' financial holdings. By granting the government ownership over the root technology of money, CBDCs allow the government complete discretion over how and whether people can use their money.

"Authoritarian surveillance state"? Like we ain't got that now?!

"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."

-- Scott McNealy

 

[JohnnySavage]

I don't understand the technical stuff. But because I hate to see a thread fail, I'll post that only 10% of the US money supply is in actual physical money. The rest is digital.

Although I realize you are probably talking about something else and I'm too old to understand it.

 

[GothTalk]

I encountered this very strange editorial in Newsweek.



"Authoritarian surveillance state"? Like we ain't got that now?!

"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."

-- Scott McNealy

LOL......

This is the authoritarian surveillance state trying to keep a grip.... blockchain crypto's are a threat to their government authority and they're trying to keep hold of it. It's not going to work, nobody with a clue trusts the US government to hold value of any sort. That's a major reason people went to blockchain in the first damn place.

 

[jaF0]

I have no use for vapor bux in this sense. Yes, most of my transactions are digital in some form. Bank transfers, electronic payments, credit/debit cars and so on. I very rarely use cash and usually don't carry any.

But even with gift cards and rewards/bonus cards, I'd like to see a lot more tracking and the ability to stop transfers or return/recover them. As it stands now, it's far too easy to use them for fraud.

 

[bellisarius]

No valid ID, no transaction.

 

[LittleDixie]

Every penny you spend, the government will steal a little piece of it.

 

[ll74]

I can't see a future where digital currency isn't going to be the norm.

 

[JohnnySavage]

It's very rare for me to have any cash on hand. Everything... even a dollar cup of coffee in the morning, goes on the debit card. Bills are all paid on line.

 

[Dribble]

It's very rare for me to have any cash on hand. Everything... even a dollar cup of coffee in the morning, goes on the debit card. Bills are all paid on line.

This isn't a digital currency. It is the digital use of the US Dollar. One must look at what backs the currency. If it is a junk bond...or other bullshit schemes....it can't last. Sorry...drug laundering isn't gonna be enough to keep the currencies afloat

 

[JohnnySavage]

I know. But I want to participate in the thread but don't understand digital currency.

 

[ll74]

It's very rare for me to have any cash on hand. Everything... even a dollar cup of coffee in the morning, goes on the debit card. Bills are all paid on line.

Same...

 

[Rightguide]

I encountered this very strange editorial in Newsweek.



"Authoritarian surveillance state"? Like we ain't got that now?!

"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."

-- Scott McNealy

Using cash, nobody knows how I spend my money if I don't want them to. The government is conducting a war on cash right now to rein in your freedom to keep your transactions private. They really have no business knowing what you are doing with your money. If they have probable cause to believe what you're doing with your money is illegal, they can get a warrant and prove it in court. Otherwise, it's none of their business.

 

[Rightguide]

The war on cash is really a war on financial privacy.



EDUCATION
Why Governments Want to Eliminate Cash
By ADAM HAYES Updated July 21, 2021
Reviewed by ERIKA RASURE

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/021816/why-governments-want-eliminate-cash.asp

The Curse of the War on Cash
SPRING/​SUMMER 2018 • CATO JOURNAL
By Lawrence H. White

https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/spring/summer-2018/curse-war-cash

How to Protect Yourself from the “War on Cash”
Justin Spittler | Feb 26, 2016 | Daily Dispatch

https://www.caseyresearch.com/daily-dispatch/how-to-protect-yourself-from-the-war-on-cash/

 

[pecksniff]

LOL......

This is the authoritarian surveillance state trying to keep a grip.... blockchain crypto's are a threat to their government authority and they're trying to keep hold of it. It's not going to work, nobody with a clue trusts the US government to hold value of any sort. That's a major reason people went to blockchain in the first damn place.

In case you haven't noticed, Bitcoin ain't holding value. It's gummint currency or nothing.

 

[GothTalk]

In case you haven't noticed, Bitcoin ain't holding value. It's gummint currency or nothing.

Held significantly more value than the USD over the last 3 years.


It's actually not gummint currency or nothing. You can buy pretty much anything with decentralized currency.

 

[pecksniff]

The war on cash is really a war on financial privacy.

I once heard defense attorney F. Lee Bailey on the college lecture circuit. He addressed the problem of violent crime. In his experience, he said, there are three kinds of murderers:

1. Career criminals, driven only by the profit motive.

2. Ordinarily law-abiding citizens who lose their tempers.

3. Crazies.

The second kind can easily be rehabilitated -- they do a prison term and never step out of line again. The third, only psychiatrists can understand. The first kind can be quite effectively deterred if we just ban cash, make it a crime to have more than $100 or $200 in one's possession. Any other form of currency leaves a trail when it changes hands, which a criminal cannot afford -- it's an all-cash business, cash is anonymous.

Threat to freedom? Well, it's a threat to anonymity -- but nobody has any constitutional right to be invisible to the state, or to conduct transactions invisibly.

 

[Rightguide]

Threat to freedom? Well, it's a threat to anonymity -- but nobody has any constitutional right to be invisible to the state, or to conduct transactions invisibly.

Read the IV Amendment and it's voluminous caselaw. Then read Art. I Sec. 10.

 

[pecksniff]

Read the IV Amendment and it's voluminous caselaw. Then read Art. I Sec. 10.

I once handled a case for a midwifery clinic. They told me some of their clients disappeared right after the birth -- that is, before it was time to fill out the birth certificate. Apparently, they wanted their children to be invisible to the state -- perhaps for religious reasons, identifying the state with Caesar.

People like that are idiots.

 

[Rightguide]

I once handled a case for a midwifery clinic. They told me some of their clients disappeared right after the birth -- that is, before it was time to fill out the birth certificate. Apparently, they wanted their children to be invisible to the state -- perhaps for religious reasons, identifying the state with Caesar.

People like that are idiots.

Nihil ad rem. What does this sketchy anecdote have to do with what I posted?

 

[pecksniff]

Nihil ad rem. What does this sketchy anecdote have to do with what I posted?

Considerably more than Article 1 Section 10, or Amendment 4. Neither of those confer or guarantee any right of invisibility.

 

[Chernosoth]

I can't see a future where digital currency isn't going to be the norm.

You can't see electricity becoming too expensive for the internet, electric cars, the surveillance state, etc. Fine. Go back to sleep.

Meanwhile, the short lifespan of paper money may eventually make it too expensive to make. An economy of mostly barter and some coins could be some decades ahead.

 

[pecksniff]

You can't see electricity becoming too expensive for the internet, electric cars, the surveillance state, etc. Fine. Go back to sleep.

Meanwhile, the short lifespan of paper money may eventually make it too expensive to make. An economy of mostly barter and some coins could be some decades ahead.

If we lose electric power, a "surveillance state" will not be technically possible anyway. Napoleon would have had such a thing if he could, but he couldn't.

 

[WillJ8787]

I encountered this very strange editorial in Newsweek.



"Authoritarian surveillance state"? Like we ain't got that now?!

"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."

-- Scott McNealy

Anyone who puts money into this sort of thing is making a bet, just like gambling....except, even when gambling there are some rules and regulations to ensure one doesn't get robbed.

Digital currency is a fools game....it can be a threat if enough money gets put there, then it "looses" it value. (another way of saying those who received the money decided to run off to Mexico with it") Those folks will surely want a bailout or will convince the rest of us they should be bailed out.

 

[Rightguide]

Considerably more than Article 1 Section 10, or Amendment 4. Neither of those confer or guarantee any right of invisibility.

Ask a cop if he can make me open my safe without a warrant attesting to probable cause.

 

[pecksniff]

Ask a cop if he can make me open my safe without a warrant attesting to probable cause.

That has nothing at all to do with this.