[henrikschroder]

> The question is whether someone has a legal right to conduct a monetary transaction anonymously.

Well, a big argument for cash is that it allows you to do illegal transactions as well, and that this is extremely important, because who decides what is illegal and not? Making all illegal transactions impossible is a great way to stop civil disobedience, to stop dissenting movements, to stop anything the current regime simply doesn't like.

But those are the things driving our society forward.

[esoterica]

That's kind of an amusing line of thinking, that the government has an obligation to make doing illegal things as easy as possible, because sometimes doing the illegal thing is morally permissible. How far are you willing to go down that rabbit hole? For example, the existence of a police force makes it harder to break the law, should we disband the police to make engaging in civil disobedience easier?

[henrikschroder]

Government is us, the people. It's not some mythical entity separate from the society it exists in.

How far are you willing to go the other way? If the police knew where every single citizen was 100% of the time, crime rates would plummet! Super easy, fit everyone with a gps anklet, and make it punishable with jailtime for anyone who tampers with them or removes them. Tadaa!

It's a balance between fascism and liberty, between control and freedom. Removing cash moves that balance too far in the wrong direction, which is why we should oppose it, if we want a free society.

[Reelin]

> an obligation to make doing illegal things as easy as possible

(possible) != (as easy as possible)

The claim is that making illegal transactions impossible would cause societal harm.

I agree that it's an amusing idea, but it's also extremely important and not much talked about. Bruce Schneier touched on it in a 2018 essay (https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2018/11/surveillanc...).

> All social progress—from ending slavery to fighting for women's rights—began as ideas that were, quite literally, dangerous to assert.

[esoterica]

But illegal transactions would still be possible without cash (people pay for drugs on Venmo all the time), just trickier and with a higher likelihood of getting caught. By your logic a cashless society would still be acceptable.

[henrikschroder]

It's the turn-key fascism that's worrying. People buy drugs with Venmo because they're fucking stupid, and because banks and governments don't crack down on it. But they could.

Wikileaks ran into trouble when all the major credit card companies decided to deny payments to them.

Cash ensures that all transactions are allowed, anonymous, and untraceable, no matter the nature of the transaction, no matter society's morals, and no matter who's currently in charge of government.