True. The issue I have is that anonymity exists, it's just expensive, so only rich people have it. This makes the choice from "financial privacy or no financial privacy" to "financial privacy for the rich or for everyone".

Good point. And if it's truly a binary choice of only-the-rich or everyone then I'm more inclined to side with anonymity for everyone.

Disagree because you’re already getting screwed by the rich. Being anonymous doesn’t divorce from the “getting screwed” class, but it continues to aid the rich.

Financial anonymity is important — just because the panic of the day is “secret Nazis” doesn’t make this untrue. Consider a woman trying to escape domestic abuse, who has been financially trapped. If all transactions are untraceable, a $20 to “a grocery store” here and there can very well be her escape route. Same goes for oppressed individuals attempting to escape abusive families, neighborhoods, countries. Realistically the people you’re most worried about have used what they’ve always used to conduct their transactions anonymously: cash.

Just because the government knows about my bank account doesn't mean my wife/neighbor/rando does. No one is talking about radically public bank accounts; the surveillance is only for the government.

what happens when your government is corrupt and is after you? such blind trust in big daddy government

So what happens when your abusive boyfriend is a cop or a government worker?

which they are, of course, statistically more likely to be in this instance. https://www.amazon.com/Police-Wife-Epidemic-Domestic-Violenc...

I was opting for heavy subtext, I completely agree :)