My opponent seems to think that by insisting that there is only his myopic, dystopic view of a possible future, based on his highly egocentric view of
the present, that he will somehow win this debate. As I have said before, and I will demonstrate again, there are logical ways that our ‘cashless
society’ would be structured, all of them exampling the benefits outweighing detriments.
This excludes the one my opponent keeps insisting is the only valid one, the one that fits his view
of the world and humanity. Which is a
world full of people like himself; one populated with men who would kill another man over five hundred dollars owed and then lie about it because they
are afraid of retribution.
I wholeheartedly do not
subscribe to this view of humanity and believe we are not only capable of creating an open cashless society, but given
that we are already conducting 2/3’s of our life cashless -- and keeping in mind how technology relentlessly marches ahead -- there is real and
quite possibly urgent merit in discussing how we would do so.
Before I get to that, please allow me to clear up any confusion in regards to my “FATAL errors” my opponent alludes to, and address a few more of
I stand by my answer to his response to SQ2 as he does presume foreknowledge of, the mostly Freemason, Founding Fathers’ intent. There are
countless threads on this site alone speculating what the real agenda was when founding this country.
Our constitutional rights unquestionably exist to protect us from abuse of our liberty
I did not disagree with that.
My oppponent has plainly admitted that some of that protection has to go away in order for us to go cashless.
I admitted no such thing.
I also stand by SQ3 in so far that the content of my post that preceded the answer specified that a loss of privacy is not an absolute if the right
regulations and protections are put into place
. But if that point was lost, please allow me to address it here by pointing that out. And also
point out, once again, that my opponent is only willing to engage in this debate on his limited terms.
As to not addressing his ”SQ4/5”. I cannot answer that question(s) as I am unclear about what exactly “we are preserving her freedom from”.
That is because the question is pure, pointless jingoism and slanted to serve his agenda, which is to infer great loss of freedom, but not to commit
himself to exactly how that would be the case in an openly regulated cashless society
as he will not admit that one is possible and instead
chooses to rely on rhetorical fear-mongering.
Constitutional amendment is the most difficult function of American government, and we almost never use it for anything except taking powers away
from our central government.
Which is exactly
what we would be doing if we created an open cashless society. Creating laws, and possibly amending the constitution, to take
‘central authority’ power away from the government and putting it into the hands of the Citizen/consumer. This would be done be creating clear
and defined laws that strictly limit the exchange of information about individuals personal financial data, with legal and financial recourse and
meaningful penalties if that data was to be unlawfully shared.
And while we were engaged in addressing, and having a national dialogue about, what Citizen/consumer protections would need to be in place for the
switch to a cashless society, we would also have the obvious opportunity to regulate all of the attendant data collection and distribution that is
currently happening in the private sector at this time. The regulating of which would also surely be a benefit were we to peaceably move to a
There would also need to be profound disincentive not only for the handful of criminals that would possibly have the skill-sets to break through the
advanced encryption technology, but also for the Citizen/consumer gaming the system who is, for instance, hiring illegal immigrants.
that would be virtually done away with in a cashless society and yet another clear benefit.
Readers and Judges, please keep in mind that creating these protective and beneficial laws is not
an inconceivable idea, or task, even though
my opponent asks you to believe that the most craven and underhanded way, is the only way.
Note on page 90 that personal effects are the most stolen item, followed by motor vehicles and their parts, then followed by credit cards and other
purse/wallet contents, and cash comes in 4th.
I must admit I am a little befuddled at my opponents parsing of his link since between 57.9% – 94.9 % of all the categories of crimes committed
result in the LOSS of CASH and PURSE/WALLET/CREDIT CARDS. Property loss that would not
be motivated to occur in a cashless society for the
My opponent is, I believe, directing you to the second set of numbers which is statistics for crimes where victimizations
occurred and all we
can glean from that is that muggers are less violent than car-jackers or home robbers.
Front companies, such as the pawn shops that currently provide a large amount of the drug money in this country and the shipping companies which are
used to import drugs, are already thriving in seeming legitimacy and even paying taxes on what they have taken from society. That will not stop.
Care to put some statistical weight behind that
The illegal drug narcotics industry is hardly reliant on pawn shops to conduct
its business, and above-board tax-paying shipping companies do not remotely represent how the majority of illegal drugs reach this country and you
know it. Furthermore if legal tax-paying shipping companies did move the enormous amount illegal drugs coming country, one could easily see how that
train would quickly run out of track in a cashless society.
And how my opponent believes that his reference to cyber-crimes in 2005, that is primarily discussing the cost of malicious viruses that land on
employees computers, is relevant to this conversation is also lost on me. The statistics mostly represent lost productive time to clean up random
cyber attacks, NOT FUNDS BEING STOLEN.
The vast majority of cybercrimes (20 million incidents) were other computer security incidents,
primarily spyware, adware, phishing, and spoofing. There were nearly 1.5 million computer virus infections and 126,000 cyber fraud incidents.
The above is excerpted from my opponent’s link and from this we can see that even in a self-regulated, using unspecified random safety precautions
and unknown use of encryption technology – none of which would be the case in our cashless society – that less than 10% of these cyber-crimes
(embezzlement, fraud or loss of personal/financial data) resulted in monetary loss. And 75% of those were conducted by “Insiders” that were
directly working with, or for, the business
Furthermore these employees and contractors would not have that ability in the cashless society I am putting forth. Logic dictates, as I said in my
first statement, that only the most secure forms of encryption technology would be used and updated and that access to it would be streamlined with
buffers and ‘firewalls’ in place around the consumer, the merchant, the bank accounts as well as the governments access to it.
His link to 2007 cybercrime is not correct, so I cannot respond to what specifically he is implying beyond saying again
that the types of
cybercrimes that are being reported are not salient to the cashless society I am proposing. Because the large part of the personal cyber-crimes that
people are currently victim to is a result of the fact that there is NO UNIFORM, PROTECTED AT ALL COSTS, STANDARDS IN PLACE.
And no one is talking about a paperless society. There would still be official paper-trails of your cashless transactions between you and your
financial institution. Just like there is today for over 2/3’s of all financial transactions completed in the United States.
ANS SQ1. - No, and again you are using subjective terms in phrasing your question. I think it is evil that you would like to kill someone over $500
you loaned them 10 or more years ago.
- Do you?
ANS SQ2. - One could certainly say that some of you may call ‘evil’ in our world could be judged to be motivated by greed, but I don’t think
that those who are committing those crimes tell themselves that.
ANS SQ3. - It would depend on how it was enacted.
ANS SQ4. - Spinning again. I said it would occur if it was forced
on the populous, but if we were to engage the public in the creation of a
cashless society, possibly as an answer to our current economic woes, and the populous saw that it offered them greater power and protection than they
currently have, I do not think a revolt would occur and would go far as to say a cashless society would be embraced.
ANS SQ5. - See above answer AND above statement that calls for lawfully adjudicated ‘decentralized data’ collection with attendant protections
for the consumer/citizen.
– Do you agree that illegal immigrants taking U.S. citizen jobs would be greatly hampered, if not almost entirely done away with, in a
– If so, do you agree that this will benefit the American Worker as well as the U.S. economy?
– Do you agree that a cashless society would not only serve as a great disincentive for those looking to illegally immigrate, but would
encourage those already here to legally immigrate or leave?