[dahfizz]

> I would argue that people just use their bank account for such large payments these days.

Yup, and now they are _forced_ to. Its a single point of failure. One which the government conveniently has control over.

I'm surprised the HN crowd isn't grasping this more clearly. Backups are important.

[c4ptnjack]

For most businesses, cash is a far more likely point of failure.

Taking in large amounts of cash is ripe for robbery. It's also why a lot of places don't accept $100's after a certain time and etc because it gets really risky for the employees.

[mrfumier]

Government has control of your cash just as well. If the central bank decides your bills are not recognized anymore, or that they want to print 1000% more of it, your cash value changes.

[edzillion]

Which is Mutually Assured Destruction. I can't think of many occasions in which financial elites would destroy their own wealth in pursuit of political (?) goals.

The one incident I can think of didn't end well.

[senko]

> Its a single point of failure

You can have more than one bank account.

[matt123456789]

The point is that you cannot do any meaningful amount of business if “the system” prevents you from banking, or malfunctions in some way that locks you out. Or more insidiously, if someone in power prevents you from banking because they do not like what you have to say. There is no longer a gray market relief valve. All unbanked business activity is illegal.

[b112]

The recent trucker protest in Canada, had just this happen.

People locked out of their accounts. For protesting!

[Zircom]

Blocking domestic and international commerce, and more importantly access for emergency services, goes a little beyond just "protesting" as most people see it, and it also probably isn't protected by whatever right to assemble/protest people have in Canada, if any(?).

[b112]

Blocking domestic and international commerce, and more importantly access for emergency services, goes a little beyond just "protesting" as most people see it,

Blocking emergency services is a very, very weird thing. Loads of protests do so. Parades do so.

That said, the problem isn't "was it a protest or not", the problem is judicial oversight was suspended, by employing what used to be called The War Measures Act.

Yes, only some of the powers were used. Yet those powers were used to bypass all legal and constitutional protections, and snoop into bank accounts, and freeze bank accounts, again... all without judicial oversight.

None of these people had been charged. To this day, most of those who had their bank accounts snooped in, and frozen (and later thawed), were never charged with a crime.

This is not possible in Canada, legally, without using one of the most powerful laws at our disposal. And regardless of the protest length, or type, it wasn't an emergency.

Blockades at the borders, and in Alberta were cleared without issue, before the act was declared.

Lastly, compared to protests in some other democratic countries? It was nothing. Meaningless. Tiny. Trivial.

But again, most importantly -- agree or not, like or not, even if you hated those truckers, having the government declare an emergency, for something that was not? Then having that government use those powers to bypass the judicial branch?

Insane. Wrong. Horrifying.

Such laws should absolutely not be used to punish your political rivals!

[Beaver117]

>Of course you have the right to protest against the government >Nooooo not like that!!

Which is it?

[tadfisher]

At least in the US, the right is of "peaceable assembly", not a blank check to break laws.

[llanowarelves]

Bank accounts as we know them may not exist in the world of CBDCs because they can just be held by the fed directly, which is their design.

[lordnacho]

The government has control over that in any case. For instance a judge can force a liability on you.