Bo Diddley
Well-Known Member
Silver Britannias are about £31 each. 99.9% pure
Opposing digital currency.
- Thread starter User00035
- Start date
markj1
Well-Known Member
Personally, I have no strong views either way.
I think that cashless is fine for those who feel comfortable with it. I am also OK with a cashless society, provided that the use of notes is allowed to be phased-out over time due to decline in demand, rather than being mandates by the government - pretty much in the same way as we no longer use barter these days, not because it's illegal, but because we see money as a more convenient and universally-accepted method of trade. In short, I would like the government to keep the notes and coins for as long as people still use them, but not necessarily in perpetuity.
I can understand why governments prefer digital currency, but realistically criminals and tax dodgers will not go away, instead they will simply use virtual cryptocurrency for their illegal dealings. The removal of notes and coins will, however, save the government a small fortune just by avoiding the costs associated with the printing and managing money, as well as eliminating forgeries.
But at the same time, I think that anyone objecting to the use of digital currency because of fears of government oppression, has got it all wrong.
The answer is not physically preventing the government from being able to take action, because then it can't take action also against criminals and terrorists. The answer is to legislate and correctly regulate the powers given to the government, and this should be done through parliament and the courts.
Canada wanting to freeze the bank accounts of striking workers is not an example of why we should all have cash that the government cannot touch - to my mind, it simply means that there is something fundamentally wrong with the democratic system in Canada, because such a move should have been blocked by their parliament and the courts.
Think of it this way - police occasionally arrest people who should not have been arrested in the first place. How do we deal with this? Do we take away arresting powers from the police 'because they can't be trusted with it'? The criminals will have a field day if we did that... No, we do not take away from the police their ability to arrest people, instead we regulate the powers that police have by limiting the time they can hold someone and requiring the intervention of other institutions e.g. the CPS and the Courts in order to hold someone longer than a certain amount of time.
The same applies to digital currency - the government's ability to manipulate it must be regulated via our democratic institutions, and not by taking this tool away from them altogether.
I think that cashless is fine for those who feel comfortable with it. I am also OK with a cashless society, provided that the use of notes is allowed to be phased-out over time due to decline in demand, rather than being mandates by the government - pretty much in the same way as we no longer use barter these days, not because it's illegal, but because we see money as a more convenient and universally-accepted method of trade. In short, I would like the government to keep the notes and coins for as long as people still use them, but not necessarily in perpetuity.
I can understand why governments prefer digital currency, but realistically criminals and tax dodgers will not go away, instead they will simply use virtual cryptocurrency for their illegal dealings. The removal of notes and coins will, however, save the government a small fortune just by avoiding the costs associated with the printing and managing money, as well as eliminating forgeries.
But at the same time, I think that anyone objecting to the use of digital currency because of fears of government oppression, has got it all wrong.
The answer is not physically preventing the government from being able to take action, because then it can't take action also against criminals and terrorists. The answer is to legislate and correctly regulate the powers given to the government, and this should be done through parliament and the courts.
Canada wanting to freeze the bank accounts of striking workers is not an example of why we should all have cash that the government cannot touch - to my mind, it simply means that there is something fundamentally wrong with the democratic system in Canada, because such a move should have been blocked by their parliament and the courts.
Think of it this way - police occasionally arrest people who should not have been arrested in the first place. How do we deal with this? Do we take away arresting powers from the police 'because they can't be trusted with it'? The criminals will have a field day if we did that... No, we do not take away from the police their ability to arrest people, instead we regulate the powers that police have by limiting the time they can hold someone and requiring the intervention of other institutions e.g. the CPS and the Courts in order to hold someone longer than a certain amount of time.
The same applies to digital currency - the government's ability to manipulate it must be regulated via our democratic institutions, and not by taking this tool away from them altogether.
Similar threads
