For example: in Canada, the bank accounts of those who protested were literally frozen (for simply speaking out or being critical) and talks of potential CBDCs (aka. used to deduct funds from one’s account as a fine) whilst considering on abolishing cash altogether.
The alternative (for now at least) may be Crypto (online) until they consider that “illegal” in the future penalizing those who are using it, framing that as money laundering or tax evasion, whilst pushing their propaganda of “tap & go is safe & convenient”.
The answers are divided between:
- “Cash is King” (it allows anonymous or “private” transactions between you and the merchant)
- “Contactless” (convenient, but your purchases & transactions are monitored by the state)
Cash is apparently the last bastion of “anonymous” transactions where it doesn’t appear on one’s statement and one gets to keep their money without the state deducting it from their account since a nation’s central bank has monopoly over CBDCs and one’s funds.
That’s not even the end of it: them trying to make BTC or equivalent illegal by making CBDCs the default replacing gold overnight, it would mean all those bills you have are worthless. At this point, the only payment method is CBDCs that are linked to one’s digital ID.
Why is this a question?
“Should people be allowed to keep their rights?” – this is usually intended to spark discussion, but discussing from this pov helps those who want bad things more than those who dont.
Because some people have a tendency to question the validity of things that don’t make sense to them. I could see someone asking, “why even have physical money anymore when everyone uses banking or credit?”
The same deal with privacy, “why should I worry about internet privacy if I have done no wrong and have nothing to hide?” There are always people left out and harmed in pursuit of some form of purisim like those lines of thought.