Pandemic Protection or the War Against Cash?

I saw STILLWATER on a night out recently.

I won't discuss the movie here (maybe another day). What struck me was that this was the first time I had seen the new contact-free snack bar in operation. They don't give change. They still allow you to hand over exact amounts in cash, but short of exactitude you're expected to use a plastic card or one of those swipe-with-your-phone things.

It was an odd feeling,. I was standing there with my newly purchased coke in hand unsure whether I was going to get a paper receipt or something.

Eventually, the clerk had to tell me, "You're all set sir" to get me out of there.

This is sold as pandemic protection. And I'm not a conspiratorial kind of guy.

But I gotta tell you, ladies and germs, this seems to me like part of a broader War on Cash. The powers that be don't like us to have cash, because it allows for difficult-to-trace transactions.

My humble purchase of that bottle of Coca-Cola is in a database now. If I had had exact change, it wouldn't be. And in a simpler time, if the clerk had been in a position to make change, still it wouldn't be.

There is nothing very interesting that the Powers that Be can make of the fact that Christopher Faille bought a Coca-Cola at a certain moment. It may add to a broader picture of my consumer habits, and demonstrate how thoroughly caffeinated my life is But each is old news by now, surely.

Anyway, the "exact change" rule is a gentle step away from banning cash altogether. And the fewer uses cash has, the less it will be in circulation. All heading to a day when EVERYTHING, every little detail of every transaction, gets into everyone's database.

I'm not a fan of the idea.

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog