Cashless society: the day people will judge the government's complicity

The post-war era has been going on for so long that it seems to many generations alive today that the current state of affairs will go on forever. History suggests otherwise, as regimes tumble and fall, at some point or another. And when that happens, the people traditionally have excellent memories, to remind their governments what they did wrong. If any European government is to fall in the next decade or two, it may be for having slowly pushed their people into the cashless world, where it can completely control them.

A century ago, most transactions, even the large ones, were carried out in cash, or a physical form. Even the Alaskan purchase from the United States from Russia in 1866 was paid off in gold coins. In recent decades, however, dematerialized forms of payments have become increasingly popular and cash has been on a slow decline. This gradual shift is to the advantage of certain economic parties, who therefore lobby in its favor and request that the government on. One of those categories is banks; the expensive and risky management of cash brings no value to them, and they are compelled to provide currency as public service by governments. Ron Delnevo, director of the ATM Industry Association in Europe, says: "Some organisations want to drive people away from cash because it suits their agenda, so they would be well suited by LINK disappearing", regarding the high suspicion of British banks trying to throw the population into a cashless era. If they succeed in convincing public authorities and history brings governments to their people's tribunal, there is a high likelihood of what the governmental defense line will be : "we simply went along".

Because the government shares this public service through its central banks which are responsible for the authenticity and free circulation of the currency, it is sensitive to this perspective of both alleviated responsibilities and increased revenue and power. After all, if cash were to disappear, the government wouldn't need to run after bank robbers and counterfeiters, nor would it need to issue new banknotes regularly. Some cash-ban supporters also claim that ending the phase of currency would curb tax evasion by placing every citizen within the computerized world where the government can control all dealings. In the wake of India's brutal cash-ban, Shishir Tripathi wrote for FirstPost :"Experts have stressed for long time that cashless economy will help the income-tax (I-T) department audit various transactions more accurately and help check the parallel economy. Also, it will help in curbing tax evasion and increase the taxpayers' base." However, this point is contradicted by many experts.

But, regardless of the technical advantages which a cashless economy would provide, the reform would miss the main point: people form governments with the main task of protecting their interests. Stephen Dubner quotes an opponent to cash-ban-supporting economist Kenneth Rogoff, who objects that "Cold, hard cash may allow criminals anonymity, but it also affords honest, law abiding people the [freedom] to live [their] lives outside a shaky and corrupt [bank] system... Beyond that, why should honest people not be allowed anonymity? The day we go cashless, the government will be able to track your 'every move." Reducing their economic options and forcing them into a virtual world which many don't understand or care for, where they can all be constantly policed and monitored by State and bank administrators can hardly be seen as defending the public interest.

If governments do exclude cash from their economies, it will not be the first time they have resorted to drastic and brutal measures, only to see the reform go awry and corrupt the nature of their society. In 1919, the United State entasked itself with a bold and revolutionary reform, by voting the Volsteadt Act which effectively drew America into prohibition, bringing about the most unhealthy, politically dangerous phase in its existence, and opening its doors wide open to organized crime. As John Hearne wrote, regarding the Indian reform : "India has withdrawn 86% of its paper money in a bid to eradicate tax evasion, but a world that follows suit may not be very democratic". In an attempt to eradicate a long-term social nuisance, the government invited itself into people's homes and overnight turned millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals, long-lastingly damaging the State-to-citizen relationship. Once more, we are at the dawn of a possible mistake of history.

It's not about the money, because it hardly ever is. European countries have high taxes, everyone knows it and accepts it despite ranting about it sometimes. But what difference does it really make if you hand your government 77% or 79% of your income? It is about power, about the government depriving every citizen of a basic liberty, so that only it may control every subject, using the excuse of a few misbehaviors. However, a line may be crossed when citizens understand that they are boxed in, with nowhere to run or hide from the State's eye and repressive arsenal. When it becomes clear that governments can control every slightest operation through banking and financial networks, people will have either to accept it, or topple the government. Historically, they have toppled it, in England, in the United States and in Europe.