Comment by embedding-shape
2 hours ago
> Exactly. You do not want to hand the US government the ability to “turn off” someone’s daily life at the press of a button.
If you're within the borders of the US, this ability already exists, they have a monopoly on violence in the country, something the government is very eager to demonstrate this year.
> they have a monopoly on violence in the country
I have not seen a definition of this that is simultaneously true and useful
The sole provider of violence in the U.S. is not the government.
There’s a lot of room between violence and financial isolation. The government has shown multiple times that it is willing to go after otherwise law-abiding citizens who take up disfavored careers, whether it’s gun dealers and payday lenders in Operation Choke Point, cannabis dispensaries in states where it was legal, or online cam girls. In all of these cases, going to cash or using alternatives to the banking system was possible and even necessary for them to survive.
And none of those examples you use, involve SSNs, these are all 100% paperless people/companies? Makes me wonder how they got bank accounts in the first place if they're so disconnected from society.
The individuals had SSNs, but did not have a hypothetical national ID connected to systems that could have been used to fully isolate them. As long as backchannels exist in the system to accommodate those without SSNs/DLs, it is possible to get by even if the system tries to cut you off.
2 replies →