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.
Yes, and the failure of possible legal protections really illustrates the vulnerability I'm talking about here. This stuff took effect by default, had to be countered by a lawsuit, which hasn't worked so far. It should be really clear why further moves away from cash and any semblance of financial privacy and autonomy are dangerous invitations to more abuse.
Are you even more worried about the failure of possible legal protections when the government decides to use the navy to sink fishing boats and come back to kill the survivors?
There's a limit to what you can do when the house and senate refuse to impeach a president who is obviously breaking the law constantly, and when the justice department sees itself as the president's lawyer.