Imagine becoming a dissident in a totalitarian society where you can be cut off from all commercial transactions with the click of a button (i.e. cash has a broader purpose).
As you described, one click cut off from commercial transactions and in the cases of the EU sanctioning its own citizens where even helping them feed themselves or their children is an illegal act.
And most people are totally oblivious to most of these massive shifts in the fundamental assumptions of democratic society, and may even support the tyranny they presumably must believe will never be turned on them, even though no one knows more what a loathsome person a traitor is than those who the traitor has served in his betrayal.
And even in cases like Maduro who is a wanted criminal and I believe would be easily proven to have committed crimes against humanity, the lack of public indictment and backlash against the United States for bringing that piece of shit to justice discredits the ICC. It can’t be an organization where it applies universal human rights declarations only when Israel is involved. That’s stupid and that’s exactly why the organization is a failure.
All organisations are made up.
There is absolutely no risk of him or any American president being arrested by the ICC lol.
If "the electronics" break down, shops usually can't accept any form of payment at all, because that would be illegal with their on-line cash registers being offline...
Or are you thinking more of a "farmer" as someone selling individual artisan carrots?
That's the trust of established relations.
Col. Jacques Baud is living it right now. He's been cut off from his pension and bank accounts completely in Belgium and is prohibited from crossing borders.
So he can't even return to Switzerland.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/foreign-affairs/former-swiss-in...
also article you link: "It is unclear if Baud is a resident of Switzerland."
so not sure why he should be returning to switzerland
In several interviews about his predicament he talked about the ban on crossing borders to go back to Switzerland, where he still has funds. Switzerland is not part of Schengen, so I guess he would be intercepted and then persecuted for trying to escape this medieval punishment.
Right now in Belgium he can't even buy food, as his EU accounts have been locked. He's been fed by friends and neighbours (who might also find themselves in trouble).
as for ban on crossing border, I still fail to see what is he charged with (Google results says nothing), if he is not charged with breaking some law or detained, there is no lawful way to stop him from crossing the border legally, let alone don't understand why he just doesn't flee and doesn't cross border illegaly (I mean can you even cross border illegaly when entering your own country? I guess it could be illegally exiting Germany)
I also found this sanctions tracker information
https://data.europa.eu/apps/eusanctionstracker/subjects/1802...
seems to be guy with same name born in 1995? though pictures I found everywhere show guy in 50-60s, so I guess they can't even properly write sanctions since they are for 40 years younger man?
and I still dont get why anyone would be sanctioned for being:
"Jacques Baud, a former Swiss army colonel and strategic analyst, is a regular guest on pro-Russian television and radio programmes. He acts as a mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda and makes conspiracy theories, for example accusing Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion in order to join NATO."
what is illegal about EU citizens talking to Russian TVs/radios, being mouthpiece of whatever propaganda or making consipiracy theories, all of those seem like pretty ridiculous reasons to put sanctions on someone, they can sanction then like 1/3rd of Bulgarian or Slovak population
He could always go skiing in Vallorcine, France. It's quite easy to end up in Switzerland if you take the wrong turn.
But if we are going to view the government as the enemy in this context and thus cash is a way to avoid “control” it also follows that the same are espousing avoidance of paying taxes and the control government and taxes have over you as well.
It’s interesting to see folks talking about the “disadvantaged” such as immigrants (presumably illegal because legal immigrants have varying levels of bank access) who of course deserve to use cash as a moral imperative against the totalitarian government but then if someone says well I disagree with and don’t want to pay taxes (give me cash) because of that same anti-totalitarian point of view they’d be labeled all sorts of negative things like being a non-contributor or something similar.
We have to align on consistent moral claims. If you want to argue well so and so is part of the totalitarian government apparatus then all you are doing is creating an “other” who uses cash to avoid “totalitarianism” and in which case the so-called “totalitarian” apparatus is justified in its hostility toward entities which seek to destroy it.
Prophecy: some people here may argue that's a good thing, and we should differentiate between a good and bad debanking.
Edit: as expected, if you want to push for more autocracy and control, you need to find the right bogeyman. And suddenly, people claiming they are liberal and pro freedom will start supporting authoritarian policies, but "just in some cases", whether those people are terrorists, "far rights" or paedophiles.
IMHO it's obvious that there should be a limited minimum/basic account provided by the state unconditionally, and that the current practice of using AML regulations to effectively ban people from having bank cards and bank accounts goes against the spirit of due process.
it's quite farcical that private banks are used as mandatory designated sin-eaters (scapegoats) for this. they don't want to and mostly can't comment on the specifics (because SAR - suspicious activity reporting - and the various national equivalents, usually immediately triggers the requirement to play dumb, since that's the only way to ensure that the bank cannot be later dragged in front of whatever authority for not cooperating with the investigation) but everyone knows it, since it's in the fucking news.
and the actual legal actions tend to be overturned.
all of which in total end up helping these organizations (and these politicians) to farm reputation.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/various/entry-ban-for-austrian-...
You think that “actual legal actions tend to be overturned” is an acceptable state of affairs?? Think about what you said right there? Read it again. And then again!
It’s astonishing you would say such a thing. You think you would somehow be immune from the tyrant you support?
i am using that as support for my claim that this extralegal proscription of access to financial services would likely also not survive the courts.
my position on this is simple. if the state claims there's something illegal then they should charge him/them, if not then pressuring private parties to stop exercising their freedom of assembly and association obviously goes against the spirit of civil rights and the rule of law.
(and I know the problem is convoluted, hard and obviously a realpolitik minefield, but ... again, obviously whatever the last 20 years of elected governments were/are doing did not solve the problems.)
Replying to your edit: this is not a discussion about whether debanking or state control of the financial system is good or bad in general. I don't have a much opinion on such a complex topic (though I do hope that your principled opposition to state debanking also extends to muslims). What I replied to is your allegation of that he was debanked for his "opinions", which is categorically false. He was put on some sort of list, rightly or wrongly, because he had links with a far-right terrorist* who shot and killed dozens of people at a mosque. You omitting that fact and crying about authoritarianism when confronted leads me to think that you are not arguing in good faith.
*in the strictest definition of the word: openly subscribing (and self-describing) to far-right ideologies, and committing acts of terror
Of course. With the restriction that Muslims in non-Muslim countries are not entitled to Islamic banking if no bank provides it, as well as non-Muslims in Muslim countries are not entitled to non-Islamic banking.
Back to Sellner. If he is a far-right terrorist, arrest him for God's sake. Don't leave it to banks to emulate justice in their own internal processes.
Are you really trying to point at some racist freak that advocates for ethnical cleansing via mass deportations as an example of debanking being bad?
Because you are actually convincing me of the opposite.
It's unfortunate that many people, including you, would support authoritarian methods and reducing of human rights like free speech, privacy, etc, as long as that is framed against "bad" people, and not "good".
Of course, that same totalitarian regime may tomorrow decide you are "bad", or at least not "good enough".
I'm not arguing about Sellner, I picked him because I knew it would provoke this kind of response.
But if he did something illegal, state should arrest him, bring him to court, and put him in jail. Legally and fine, that's why we pay taxes.
But since he is not convinced, and not jailed, harassing him because some people don't like him is pure tyranny. Approved by the people who think they are better than North Korea.
This would only be unfortunate if I believed that free speech is an absolute right, which I definitely don't. And reducing it to an authoritarian view is not going to advance this discussion.
I view society as a compromise. By living in a society I actively choose to curtail many freedoms that I would (or should) otherwise have. Some of those are imposed by the state as laws and regulations, some are imposed by societal norms. In other words, if I show up for a job interview wearing only a thong, I will not get that job.
Following your rationale, any law or regulation is tyrannical as it curtails freedom. Whether this is true or not, that is not something I am willing to settle. I would still prefer to live in a tyrannical society (by what you seem to believe is tyranny) than in a chaotic anarchy.
And part of that compromise that society enforces is limitations on speech. If a racist freak is allowed to spread his advocacy for ethinical cleansing, is it a slippery slope to believe he might succeed in his goals? Let us remember that the Final Solution of Nazi Germany was final because it was the not the original solution. Initially the idea was a mass deportation based on ethnicity. Should we allow those seeds to root again based on some misguided idea of "it will be tyrannical to not allow this bullshit to be advocated for freely"?
Perhaps he should be trialed and properly convicted for his advocacy. If the laws are not in place for it, I am fine with debanking this asshole.
Wouldn't it be better to update the laws than let the corporation do self-justice by punishing "assholes" who didn't do anything illegal?
If corporations like banks are allowed to do self-justice, why not individuals? And what is an appropriate punishment for someone who is an asshole, but didn't do anything illegal? Debanking? Fine. Removing from social media? Fine. Not allowing to rent a place to live? Fine? Beating? Not fine. A little beating, just an "appropriate" amount of beating? Maybe also fine?
I'd rather have a state properly process and handle these cases than big corps or some "society".
Generally, yes.
> If corporations like banks are allowed to do self-justice, why not individuals? And what is an appropriate punishment for someone who is an asshole, but didn't do anything illegal? Debanking? Fine. Removing from social media? Fine. Not allowing to rent a place to live? Fine? Beating? Not fine. A little beating, just an "appropriate" amount of beating? Maybe also fine?
Perhaps this will be news to you, but being socially ostracized is not exactly new.
While I don't exactly think this is the best course of action, I will not pretend this is unprecedented.
And you know, we are taking about some hypothetical here. Banks may have found it complicated to handle donations that he was receiving.
People in general, thankfully, find views such as "let's mass deport certain ethnicities in an ethinical cleansing" a view that is too repulsive and would prefer not to be anywhere close to it.
> I'd rather have a state properly process and handle these cases than big corps or some "society".
No need for scary quotes around society. You likely live in one, its all around you, and it's what the government generally is meant to represent.
First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
First the people who despise democracy and plurality, the people you belittle as "racists or whatever freaks", came for one group, then the next. And that is why people who come for Nazis also become Nazis in the same way an oncologist who cuts out cancer becomes cancer: not at all.
> Though we are aware that the might of National Socialism must be broken militarily, we seek to achieve a revival of the deeply wounded German spirit from within. However, this rebirth must be preceded by a clear confession of all the guilt the German nation has incurred and by a ruthless battle against Hitler and his too-numerous helpers’ helpers, Party members, Quislings, et al. The chasm between the better part of the nation and everything connected with National Socialism must be brutally forced open. There is no punishment on this earth that is adequate for the deeds of Hitler and his followers. Out of love for the generations to come, we must make an example [of them] after the conclusion of the war so that no one will ever have the slightest desire to attempt something similar.
-- The White Rose
They also called Nazis "subhumans", by the way. And that is perfectly fine by me, I think those leaflets have aged perfectly well.
How about this: drones that fly up to people and tell them "isn't Hitler great" or whatever, and when that person grins and their pupils dilate, and some follow-up tests also succeed, they get zapped on the spot. Just turned to ash. Deal? That would be actually honouring what people in those times were saying.
No single Nazi murdered millions or started a war, they all just did a bunch of things with a few others, and before you know it, a continent is on fire and tens of millions are murdered. None of them wanted that (some actually didn't, I bet you; they may have been fine with murder and conquest but not Auschwitz and Germany in ashes), and that is why when we see this disease (and I really think it's a sort of mental illness produced by mass society), we already know the infected people will not take responsibility for the whole group. They will not actually lift their eyes and view all their peers in the context of all of history. They will, again, just do a few things each, and then, again, be completely fucking useless when it comes to cleaning up their mess, and mourning the dead they owe. They didn't study what they are, so they have no fucking clue. And knowing that, we have no right to let them.
You don't get to invoke Godwin when the subject matter is already nazi-adjacent.
I didn't find any direct reference to him supporting anything like athletic cleansing.
He also has the right to rule of law, a fair trial, etc. Banks shouldn't be the ones playing the roles of juries and judges.
If he's not good for society, lock him up / execute / stone / cane / exile / etc him.
We're basically sleepwalking into a social credit system.
We all have to take stances.
Some choose to think about the rights of the people victimized by racist ethnonationalist freaks.
Some choose to think about the the right of people to be racist ethnonationalist freaks without any inconvenience.
Chipping away at people from the shadows (i.e. taking away their banking) isn't how a civilized society should act.
I also think it's a very very dangerous path if we let banks, tech companies, etc decide what rights we're allowed in society.