originally here : https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6849384247061450752/

There is a danger of a massive assault on an assumed social and political freedom. The right of everyone to spend money as they wish, with a few exceptions, may soon be history

“Programmable money is designed with in-built rules that constrain the user. These rules could mean that money expires after a fixed date or its use is restricted to a certain set of goods. This would affect digital currency acceptance and has obvious legal implications.”

““There could be some socially beneficial outcomes from that, preventing activity which is seen to be socially harmful in some way. But at the same time it could be a restriction on peoples’ freedoms.”

https://lnkd.in/dNWFuguqhttps://lnkd.in/dRYfZ4CN

It is staggering people seem unaware what’s happening in plain sight. In Britain, this could be the greatest change in money since the end of over 300+ years of the de facto slavery of serfdom introduced by Normans and the arrival of ‘the cash nexus’. Victorian Tommy or Truck shops and payment in company tokens were, rightly, made illegal.

We could see an attempt to destroy the fundamental right and freedom for individuals to spend their money as they wish. The key is in the word ‘their’. “…. it could be a restriction on people’s freedoms.” As understatements go, this takes the biscuit. “Socially harmful” ? More like: ‘socially catastrophic’

That this is being discussed, with little or no apparent understanding of the enormity and danger of such meddling, speaks volumes. Politicians may believe they can, at last, control markets. The Bank of England and, it seems, most British politicians resemble a 12 year old holding a sub-machine gun wondering if it might be a good idea to use it to scare the pigeons instead of sticking to an air gun or catapult

The sheer disrespect is breathtaking. The plan appears to be to reduce the rights that go with the possession and use of money. Politicians, bankers and the super-rich, being ‘responsible people’, will retain the right to use money as they wish. The rest of us may soon find we will only be allowed to spend in a way the state thinks is good for us. What they might really mean is ‘what is good for the state’. The impact on national prosperity with the possible eradication of the black economy is unknown.

It may sound strange, but many of the super-rich are frightened. Although isolated, I suspect a number may oppose any plan to reduce money held by the vast majority to little more than a device to permit approved behaviour knowing, in time, such imprisonment could be the final straw

I know this sounds extreme. But the possibility of state manipulation of the right to spend is an enormous step. Among other things, it could be a spectacular assault on the principle of trust and respect. Without these, what happens to compromise and cooperation that hold commercial activity and society together?