• Greg@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree that makes sense and is highly needed, but I always remember the civilization-old question “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (“Who will guard the guards themselves?” or “Who watches the watchmen?”). Balancing privacy with oversight is complex. Cash offers an option for privacy and autonomy. Striking a balance between individual rights and societal needs requires thoughtful governance, not necessarily the elimination of choices like cash that some citizens may rely on.

    • misk@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Building complex systems involving humans is hard because humans are flawed. The best thing we’ve come up so far are systems involving extensive checks and balances to prevent thing happening too rapidly and without necessary oversight and even then it’s a tricky part to balance.

      For the record, I’m not for entirely cashless society but organisations that are cash heavy have proven to be source of many headaches. There is a balance to be found on thresholds and barring some types of businesses from using cash and where digital money transfer is required. Banks and other money transfer entities will have to deal with scenarios where malicious parties will try to obfuscate their intent outside of those thresholds.

      • Greg@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with you on the need for a balanced approach, recognizing both the utility and potential issues with cash. Checks and balances in financial systems are vital.

        Thank you for a thoughtful and engaging conversation on this complex matter. Your insights have certainly added depth to my understanding. Let’s continue to advocate for responsible and balanced policies.