It's the ultimate crony partnership: all people within the borders are required to use the services of our government-appointed cartel (the banks), or else we'll fine you and jail you. Because obviously, if you care about privacy, you must be a terrorist ... or something.

These experiments are the terminal phase of the fiat money disease.

+1 - in particular, it's notable that the proposed legislation doesn't include an inflation adjustment, i.e. in real terms, the maximum cash transaction will decrease over time until cash becomes impractical, even across multiple transactions.

On the other hand, the fact that it's just a cap on transactions over 10k AUS could mean it really is an anti money laundering statue and not a covert attempt at creating a cashless society.

Again, I am by no means an expert on Australian law, but I am curious about whether a law like this would be precedent-setting somehow. The role of precedence in the US legal system (and how interested parties influence legislation, for that matter) is well known and something that is browbeaten into every US civics student.

It also may be that the strength of the movement/opposition to cashless economies will hinge not on money laundering statutes but with the success or failure of libra.

I think that's what we're all afraid of. But I interpreted epiphanitus as asking what specifically, precisely, is causing this legislation in Australia, right now? Who in big tech, the financial sector, etc, and how are they pushing for this?

There are also significant advantages to cashless. Greatly reduced incentive to pickpocket or mug people, for example, and it's harder to accidentally lose money.

But it is much easier to loose your money to hackers than it is to people muggers or burglars. Being a software developer by trade I have growing distrust to software in general and software handling my money in particular.

If people truly understood the ramification of a completely cashless society, I think they would have no problem with some of the trade-offs.

Sure, if it's anonymous cryptocoins.

But I don't want the government able to monitor every $2 purchase I make.

Please state what all the positive ramifications you are referring to are. All I see is essentially some extra convenience in exchange for a probable privacy nightmare.

If they cashless society used Monero, or a fungible version of Bitcoin, sure. Even then though, it still excludes people without digital means - which is immoral.

Using cash is an option, if you don’t want to — you don’t have to.

Somebody likes getting rid of options.

They can get to prison, where options are carefully limited.

Precisely this.