Why cash should not be abolished
Robert Henderson
There are three cardinal reasons why cash should not be abolished.
The first is the immense power it would give the state over the
individual. If the only means of paying was by cards or electronic
debiting, the state could effectively make someone a non-person by
making all payments dependent upon having a state-sanctioned card or
other means of official licence to spend money.
The second reason is the inherent unreliability of both technology and
the human beings who input data. Even today the loss or malfunction of a
bank or credit card causes grave inconvenience. That would be nothing
compared with the effect of having no means of paying for anything.
The third and final reason is the destruction of privacy. Both the state
and any private corporation with which an individual dealt would have a
record of where a person was at a particular time and what they were
purchasing.
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
abelard
but that's why 'new' labour wants it
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Road_Hog
"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9kF+nRDc...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> The third and final reason is the destruction of privacy. Both the state
> and any private corporation with which an individual dealt would have a
> record of where a person was at a particular time and what they were
> purchasing.
>
> --
> Robert Henderson
re...@freeplace.net
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
The british people are far too politically naive to recognise the
dangers you cite.
State tv and the murdoch press will ensure that the subject is not
widely discussed.
I`m afraid our subjection is inevitable!
rebel
Ste
wrote:
It's funny that exactly the same argument was made when people were
first forced to use money.
Day Brown
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:17:00 +0000, Robert Henderson
> <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> There are three cardinal reasons why cash should not be abolished.
>>
>> The first is the immense power it would give the state over the
>> individual. If the only means of paying was by cards or electronic
>> debiting, the state could effectively make someone a non-person by
>> making all payments dependent upon having a state-sanctioned card or
>> other means of official licence to spend money.
>>
>> The second reason is the inherent unreliability of both technology and
>> the human beings who input data. Even today the loss or malfunction of a
>> bank or credit card causes grave inconvenience. That would be nothing
>> compared with the effect of having no means of paying for anything.
>>
>> The third and final reason is the destruction of privacy. Both the state
>> and any private corporation with which an individual dealt would have a
>> record of where a person was at a particular time and what they were
>> purchasing.
>
> but that's why 'new' labour wants it
abelard
wrote:
>So do drug dealers.
there's a difference?
thedarkman
>
> The first is the immense power it would give the state over the
> individual. If the only means of paying was by cards or electronic
> debiting, the state could effectively make someone a non-person by
> making all payments dependent upon having a state-sanctioned card or
> other means of official licence to spend money.
For once you have said something intelligent!
AlanG
wrote:
Nobody has ever been forced to use money in trade. Even the tax
gatherers will negotiate for goods if cash is not available
johannes
abelard wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:27:54 -0600, Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >abelard wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:17:00 +0000, Robert Henderson
> >> <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> There are three cardinal reasons why cash should not be abolished.
> >>>
> >>> The first is the immense power it would give the state over the
> >>> individual. If the only means of paying was by cards or electronic
> >>> debiting, the state could effectively make someone a non-person by
> >>> making all payments dependent upon having a state-sanctioned card or
> >>> other means of official licence to spend money.
> >>>
> >>> The second reason is the inherent unreliability of both technology and
> >>> the human beings who input data. Even today the loss or malfunction of a
> >>> bank or credit card causes grave inconvenience. That would be nothing
> >>> compared with the effect of having no means of paying for anything.
> >>>
> >>> The third and final reason is the destruction of privacy. Both the state
> >>> and any private corporation with which an individual dealt would have a
> >>> record of where a person was at a particular time and what they were
> >>> purchasing.
> >>
> >> but that's why 'new' labour wants it
>
> >So do drug dealers.
>
> there's a difference?
Bwadr!
Smurf
Cash is certainly becoming more and more difficult to use to pay for for
large payments. Transactions over �1000 are now treat with significant
suspicion, with transcations over �9,000 in cash are now de facto unlawful.
This amount will keep on dropping...
AlanG
Not so.
Large cash payments merely have to be traceable.
And cash payments between private individuals are still completely
legal and private
HardySpicer
wrote:
Henderson - you are an *nglish tosser. Stop speaking shite like the
majority of your countrymen.
Hardy
Smurf
= to much hassle and trouble for most companies who just stop accepting cash
for large transactions. Of course the government say its because of
terrorism, but its really about income evasion.
Ste
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:36:05 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
But they *are* forced to pay taxes in money.
> Even the tax
> gatherers will negotiate for goods if cash is not available
Nothing could have been further from the truth at the time legal
tender was introduced. Obviously chattels could be distrained and
auctioned by order of the court, but that meant you would obviously
get far less than their value (because in practice the only people
with money to buy the chattels was the local lord, who himself had to
make sure he was ingratiated with his superior in order to have cash
to pay his own dues). As I've said before, legal tender meant that the
taxman could insist that taxes be paid with the King's money. To get
the King's money you had to render services to someone with the King's
money. And the only people with the King's money were the King and his
friends.
Roger Dewhurst
>
> There are three cardinal reasons why cash should not be abolished.
>
> The first is the immense power it would give the state over the
> individual. If the only means of paying was by cards or electronic
> debiting, the state could effectively make someone a non-person by
> making all payments dependent upon having a state-sanctioned card or
> other means of official licence to spend money.
That is by far the most important one in my view.
AlanG
wrote:
>On 27 Dec, 09:53, AlanG <inva...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:36:05 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 26 Dec, 06:17, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >> There are �three cardinal reasons why cash should not be abolished.
>>
>> >> The first is the immense power it would give the state over the
>> >> individual. If the only means of paying was by cards or electronic
>> >> debiting, the state could effectively make someone a non-person by
>> >> making all payments dependent upon having a state-sanctioned card or
>> >> other means of official licence to spend money.
>>
>> >> The second reason is the inherent unreliability of both technology and
>> >> the human beings who input data. Even today the loss or malfunction of a
>> >> bank or credit card causes grave inconvenience. That would be nothing
>> >> compared with the effect of having no means of paying for anything.
>>
>> >> The third and final reason is the destruction of privacy. Both the state
>> >> and any private corporation with which an individual dealt would have a
>> >> record of where a person was at a particular time and what they were
>> >> purchasing.
>>
>> >It's funny that exactly the same argument was made when people were
>> >first forced to use money.
>>
>> Nobody has ever been forced to use money in trade.
>
>But they *are* forced to pay taxes in money.
No they are not. See below
>
>
>
>> Even the tax
>> gatherers will negotiate for goods if cash is not available
>
>Nothing could have been further from the truth at the time legal
>tender was introduced.
It is certainly the case today
> Obviously chattels could be distrained and
>auctioned by order of the court,
Actually they were seized in leu of taxes
AlanG
Don't be silly.
No company would turn down a customer because they wanted to pay a
large amount of cash. That would be a recipe for going out of business
Robert Henderson
<84ed2885-85b2-4d80...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> writes
>> Robert Henderson
>> Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
>
>Henderson - you are an *nglish tosser. Stop speaking shite like the
>majority of your countrymen.
>
>
>Hardy
Fantasy Celt Anglophopbe racist bigotry noted and saved for future use.
RH
Col Colt
news:9kF+nRDc...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>
>
though its use could be curtailed by forcing most retailers to use
electronic means of payment and by prohibiting the purchase of items with
'large sums' of cash. However it would still be next to impossible to
prohibit private individuals from using cash to make purchases. If someone
wants to buy my car, then they are going to have to pay cash as a bankers
draft is simply not secure - many people have been defrauded thanks to bogus
bankers drafts. And if this labourscum sewer of a society wants to make it
illegal to take cash then it can go fuck itself.
Cynic
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Cash does not however have to take the form of coins and notes. It is
perfectly possible to have an electronic cash card that is not
associated with any partiicular individual, and where the money can be
transferred from one person's card to another person's card without
going through anything else. It has all the advantages of cash with
few of its disadvantages.
--
Cynic
Robert Peffers
"Col Colt" <col...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iZmdnT-DGaP...@giganews.com...
Anyone of any political shade who carries on like you is of no importance in
political debate.
Robert Henderson
<col...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>There is absolutely no way that cash could be abolished in its
>entirety, though its use could be curtailed by forcing most retailers
>to use electronic means of payment and by prohibiting the purchase of
>items with 'large sums' of cash. However it would still be next to
>impossible to prohibit private individuals from using cash to make
>purchases.
You are making the false assumption there would be cash for them to
exchange. RH
Robert Henderson
<84ed2885-85b2-4d80...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> writes
>> Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
>
>Henderson - you are an *nglish tosser. Stop speaking shite like the
>majority of your countrymen.
>
>
>Hardy
Anglophobe racist bigotry noted and save for future use. RH