Feeling agitated or adventurous? Enter Tornado Country to witness the fury of Spin Doctor as he analyses the ins and outs of the modern world, tears down old preconceptions, and glimpses into history with an eye on the future.

Going Cashless: Eliminating Privacy And Personal Agency

[Cont’d from Part 3] … Making tangible cash obsolete would be an efficient way to handle monies, but it’s also as communist, sovietized and totalitarian as it gets.

I’m not sure if the economists and other specialists don’t get it, or if they’re playing the fools. They probably just want to get on with it, augment their industry, if not the whole system, and keep things moving.

The problem is that the price is too high. It violates the tenets of free society, trading human agency with centralized and total control from above.

It’s the stuff of nightmares and dystopian (cautionary) books, disguised as progress. The intent may not be totally malicious (many people are just doing their jobs, pursuing what they think is the right, natural course of progress) but even so, the potential for abuse is unmistakeable. The costs do outweigh the benefits. To grant full control of citizens’ monetary assets to third parties is like eliminating privacy and personal agency. Monitor everyone’s every move and transaction. Seize control of their capacity to function as individuals, make everything traceable and manageable again.

It’s a terrible idea leading to all kinds of problems. The future behind it is not viable. If you respect freedom and individual agency, you cannot support such an approach. The economy needs to keep up with progress, yes, and electronic and digital transactions need to become a major part of the system, no doubt, but to ditch cash altogether, placing money behind technological firewalls, is a scam. A dystopia. We’re talking societies in the image of 1984 and Fahrenheit 451.

Sure, it won’t be as bad as that at first. The transition will feel natural, and life will go on seemingly smoothly. The problems will surface gradually, organically, with the coming generations whose outlook will be limited by this arrangement. Their social contract will have accepted pack and parcel the notion that their money is not theirs to keep or store, emphasis on store. A generation raised on this principle will face problems down the line. The system will have been rigged, tampered with, the founding principles of an open society compromised. The way will have been paved for the gatekeepers to apply pressure, using their privilege to commandeer those over whose assets and livelihoods they have total control.

Let’s pause for a moment to examine the definition of totalitarianism …

Part 5 to follow