> I don’t really get the author’s argument. A lot of it seems very “slippery slope” to me.
Ok, so what? There is a reason people use that analogy. It is a real thing that happens. You go on to describe it in action yourself:
> The more extreme authoritarian uses cases like financial “imprisonment” are certainly bad, but similarly can already basically be done.
This is nihilism in its worst form. No one is saying they are breaking virgin ground here. Cash is one of the last bastions of financial privacy. One can spend it without a name being attached. That is valuable for many legitimate things. A CBDC eliminates that completely and we slide yet closer to authoritarianism.
Why build a tool no one needs and can be used for oppression?
Exactly. "They can already do that" is a strange argument used here, and it's the same argument often used as to why some new product/business doesn't matter, or isn't interesting.
If you make X easier to do, it will get done more. It's close to 100% certain.
> I don’t really get the author’s argument. A lot of it seems very “slippery slope” to me.
Ok, so what? There is a reason people use that analogy. It is a real thing that happens. You go on to describe it in action yourself:
> The more extreme authoritarian uses cases like financial “imprisonment” are certainly bad, but similarly can already basically be done.
This is nihilism in its worst form. No one is saying they are breaking virgin ground here. Cash is one of the last bastions of financial privacy. One can spend it without a name being attached. That is valuable for many legitimate things. A CBDC eliminates that completely and we slide yet closer to authoritarianism.
Why build a tool no one needs and can be used for oppression?