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.
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.
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.
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.
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.