...I hate to break it to you, but those crazies you're trying to paint are in reality a bunch of people who just want to be left alone to spend their money.

It is now the case that every financial institution is:

>Echoing every transaction over $600 to tax authorities >Filing an SAR anytime activity exceeds a particular threshold >Filing an explicit notice for law enforcement when a good chunk of money goes to cash, because it can't be tracked anymore.

I.e. We have decided that a swathe of financial transactions that were previously legal, aren't, or are likely to coincide, despite them being reasonable sums for the economic conditions.

Financial surveillance is still surveillance, and I'm getting just a bit tired of people looking at people who have some aerious concerns over things like this and brushing us off as crazies. With inflation in the mix, CBDC's on the horizon, and a lazy/LE leadable legislature, we're about putting a bow on any sort of financial privacy in the United States.

Like it or not, not everybody is okay with that continuing to getting parceled off.

That you've apparently got Governments nodding at sterilizing folks is... Well... It's a bit further down the path, but certainly a trend I have been expecting as we've slid down the 1984/Brave New World-as-a-Manual existence.

There certainly exist sane people who 'just want to be left alone to spend their money' but they don't arrive at that view for the same – subconscious or unspoken – reasons as the groups I singled out.

One relatively common example: When your partner dies, the governement locks your account to make sure taxes are being paid. Then they take a few months of waiting time before handling your account. Hope you have enough cash to bridge these months. The law changed a few years ago because too much stupidity happened, but thing are still far from optimal.

The grandmother of someone I know got actually stuck in limbo. The postal bank would not release her account until the gov OK'd it, and the gov wanted taxes paid before giving an OK. But the taxes could not be paid because the account was locked at the postal bank. The gov nor thecpostal office didn't care. After a year, her family paid the taxes, everything unlocked, and she paid back her family.

Variants of this story afd not that uncommon. Live trough it once, and you don't want governemental bureaucrats having full access to your money.

If people support liberty for the wrong reasons, does it matter? Sounds like you would rather punish pariahs rather than strike back against mass government surveillance.

> cashlessness

I see banning cash as dismal, because state and corporate power over the individual is high as is, and blocking your bank accounts would grant them absolute power.

No cash, no paying for food, fuel, utilities, and so on. Sure, it would limit crime, but it would also limit dissent, due to chilling effects, and then there is no obstacle to tyranny.

In the US, cashless society would make the death penalty obsolete. All you would need to do is place a temporary indefinite hold on someone's bank account. The rest of the problem would sort itself out rather quickly.

...I hate to break it to you, but those crazies you're trying to paint are in reality a bunch of people who just want to be left alone to spend their money.

It is now the case that every financial institution is:

>Echoing every transaction over $600 to tax authorities >Filing an SAR anytime activity exceeds a particular threshold >Filing an explicit notice for law enforcement when a good chunk of money goes to cash, because it can't be tracked anymore.

I.e. We have decided that a swathe of financial transactions that were previously legal, aren't, or are likely to coincide, despite them being reasonable sums for the economic conditions.

Financial surveillance is still surveillance, and I'm getting just a bit tired of people looking at people who have some aerious concerns over things like this and brushing us off as crazies. With inflation in the mix, CBDC's on the horizon, and a lazy/LE leadable legislature, we're about putting a bow on any sort of financial privacy in the United States.

Like it or not, not everybody is okay with that continuing to getting parceled off.

I don't know what the parent talks about as well, it is illegal to not take cash in shops* in Denmark and it is not unusual to be fined if you don't.

*: only between 6 and 22, and if there is personel at the shop

> Is there really a big problem with cashlessness? It was something everyone used to look forward to.

In the US, it wasn't something everyone looked forward to. There was very strong opposition to the idea from the beginning, well before social media was a thing. There still is plenty of opposition, although less now. That's what decades of PR efforts can get you, I guess.