51–57 of 57 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it isn't acceptable. This is a major world event that all observers find puzzling to say the least. Any analysis is worth considering. Even if it's wrong, it could put two pieces together.
> Any analysis is worth considering. Respectfully disagree.
Its also not acceptable to downvote because you disagree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Any analysis is worth considering. Respectfully disagree.
Focus on the word "considering." Doesn't mean you have to agree, but denying yourself information and perspective is just small minded. Its also not acceptable to downvote because you disagree.
I think a woldview that quickly realises the ridiculouslness of the premise is better grounded in reality than one that seriously considers it.
> Its also not acceptable to downvote because you disagree.
That's on Reddit. Downvotes on HN have always been used to express disagreement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Any analysis is worth considering. Respectfully disagree.
Focus on the word "considering." Doesn't mean you have to agree, but denying yourself information and perspective is just small minded. Its also not acceptable to downvote because you disagree.
Not really. There isn't a specific guideline on what downvoting means or what is acceptable to downvote.
Some people downvote comments they disagree with, some do it for comments that don't add anything meaningful to the dicussion, etc.
A CBDC could easily impose an actually-working tax system and the budget. But I don't see how it would implement the system where the neighborhood cops take your money and split it among themselves. Even shell companies wouldn't help, since in the end money moves to individuals. The whole thing is worse for the cops than for the citizens.
The cops do actually benefit from the isolation in that they can stop pretending that they respect the ‘law’, which they for some reason vaguely kept up until recently—at least on paper. But I don't think that they want instead to have strict ‘law’ and checks among themselves.
Putting the article aside for a bit: as a person with phantom nostalgia for cypherpunk, I'm concerned about the prospect of the CBDC—but I don't understand how corruption is supposed to work with that. One thing that Western commentators don't seem to fully realize is that currently the police and the agencies are given (relative) freedom to pillage the businesses, the population and the budget—and that's how they're…
Just because a system records citizens' transactions doesn't mean it has to record everyone's transactions, right?
The title would be better if it didn't include an acronym I've never seen before.