[BigSteve-3]

I bought a pre-owned car from a local dealer a few years back. The salesman gave me the price; something in the area of $16,200 or so. It was a fair deal, but not great. I'd seen this particular car on his lot for a few weeks and figured he would be open to a cash offer.

I made an offer of $15,000 cash, out the door; no financing, no nothing. He gets the vehicle turnover and a space for another unit. He accepted by offer. The next morning I walked in carrying a brown paper bag with 150 $100 bills.

As soon as he got done laughing he said he could've accepted a cashier's check.

[Finfinder]

There are plenty of laws telling people what they can spend their money on. For exampl, you can't spend your money on illegal drugs or guns, despite the fact that it's your money and there are entrepreneurs out there more than willing to sell these things to you. In even the most right-wing society, there are limits to the free market.

That is framed as rhetorical but to answer, it would devalue money and an individuals power as a means to negotiate a transaction.

[Puffer Fish]

There are plenty of laws telling people what they can spend their money on. For exampl, you can't spend your money on illegal drugs or guns, despite the fact that it's your money and there are entrepreneurs out there more than willing to sell these things to you. In even the most right-wing society, there are limits to the free market.

But I believe that's a fallacy of extremes. The fact that we, in the past, have decided to curtail back certain freedoms is not an automatic argument for taking away more freedoms. That would be the slippery slope argument, wouldn't it?


I think many of the posters here live in the UK and are accustomed to all sorts of restrictions on individual freedoms. They have so many laws now that the population has almost totally given up on the concept of individual freedoms. You can't conceive of it.

That and the fact that nearly half the posters in this forum are Communists (literally, due to the history of this forum, a lot of the early members came from another forum about the history of the USSR after that forum closed down) and see no issue with government controlling everything.

[Potemkin]

But I believe that's a fallacy of extremes. The fact that we, in the past, have decided to curtail back certain freedoms is not an automatic argument for taking away more freedoms. That would be the slippery slope argument, wouldn't it?

Point taken.

I think many of the posters here live in the UK and are accustomed to all sorts of restrictions on individual freedoms. They have so many laws now that the population has almost totally given up on the concept of individual freedoms. You can't conceive of it.

That and the fact that nearly half the posters in this forum are Communists (literally, due to the history of this forum, a lot of the early members came from another forum about the history of the USSR after that forum closed down) and see no issue with government controlling everything.

British political culture has traditionally tended to value stability, authority and hierarchy rather more than it valued liberty or equality, yes. And as a Brit born and bred, I tend to share my society's unconscious assumptions. This is probably one of the reasons why Communism appeals to Brits who turn radical - it allows to have our cake and eat it too. We can rebel against the injustices and absurdities of the existing order of things while still keeping our cultural attachment to social stability and (theoretically) benevolent authority. But just as you find our cultural attachment to authoritarianism puzzling, we tend to find Americans' cultural attachment to 'liberty' puzzling. After all, that attachment leads to all sorts of absurd results, such as the absence of gun control in the face of a relentless wave of school shootings, and so on.

[SolarCross]

I think many of the posters here live in the UK and are accustomed to all sorts of restrictions on individual freedoms. They have so many laws now that the population has almost totally given up on the concept of individual freedoms. You can't conceive of it.

That and the fact that nearly half the posters in this forum are Communists (literally, due to the history of this forum, a lot of the early members came from another forum about the history of the USSR after that forum closed down) and see no issue with government controlling everything.

pofo is not representative of british people, not by a long shot, and neither are communists in general.

The funny thing is the British culture is probably more pro freedom than the US in general, but we tend to be more pragmatic and yanks more idealistic. It is all very well bleating out "FREEDOOM!" randomly but what actually do you mean by that? One man's freedom is another man's crushing injustice. How about the freedom to piss anywhere I want? The freedom to enter private property in the middle of the night uninvited? The freedom to go on a shooting spree?

The idealistic liberty lover of the US says you can't drink alcohol in public but drugged up mental patients can wander around a shopping mall with a fully loaded RPG.

The pragmatic liberty lover of the UK says you can get as drunk as you fucking like in any public place as long as you do not start too many fights, but you absolutely should be properly vetted if you intend to keep a firearm.

Oh the tyranny!

[Puffer Fish]

The idealistic liberty lover of the US says you can't drink alcohol in public but drugged up mental patients can wander around a shopping mall with a fully loaded RPG.

The pragmatic liberty lover of the UK says you can get as drunk as you fucking like in any public place as long as you do not start too many fights, but you absolutely should be properly vetted if you intend to keep a firearm.

Oh the tyranny!

You are getting really off-topic now, but I'll just say this: Americans view some freedoms as much more important than others. The ability to secure freedom, and be able to defend one's family and property, is more important than the freedom to go carousing around drunk in public and have lots of free loose sex with whoever so one is inclined.

[colliric]

It's not becoming law. Not anymore anyway.

[Sivad]

we tend to find Americans' cultural attachment to 'liberty' puzzling. After all, that attachment leads to all sorts of absurd results, such as the absence of gun control in the face of a relentless wave of school shootings, and so on.

Liberty isn't causing school shootings, the lack of liberty is causing the school shootings. If children weren't forcibly herded into mass industrial indoctrination facilities and then dosed with hardcore psychotropic drugs they probably wouldn't be shooting up mass industrial indoctrination facilities. If we weren't forcing people into a demented system people wouldn't be going on demented rampages.

[Sivad]

I bought a pre-owned car from a local dealer a few years back. The salesman gave me the price; something in the area of $16,200 or so. It was a fair deal, but not great. I'd seen this particular car on his lot for a few weeks and figured he would be open to a cash offer.

I made an offer of $15,000 cash, out the door; no financing, no nothing. He gets the vehicle turnover and a space for another unit. He accepted by offer. The next morning I walked in carrying a brown paper bag with 150 $100 bills.

As soon as he got done laughing he said he could've accepted a cashier's check.

you shouldn't ever tell them you're gonna pay cash. They make their money off financing, not off the vehicle. If you make them think you're gonna sign up for long term financing they'll cut you a sweetheart deal on the vehicle. Just get a written and signed price on the vehicle before you discuss payment options.

[AFAIK]

There are two types of freedom, freedom from and freedom to. You cannot enhance one without restricting the other. If I'm free to do something you are not freed from that thing.

[Trajan]

I don't trust the ABC enough to take that article on face value. The committee or someone said

"The cash payment limit does not, in any way, reduce the capacity of individuals and businesses to withdraw money, in any denomination, from their bank accounts and hold it outside the financial system. Likewise, the bill does not affect the ability to deposit cash with a financial institution."

The committee also dismissed concerns raised about the bill's impact on privacy and civil liberties, noting, "this must be balanced against the concerns raised by other stakeholders who described the negative impacts of criminal activity and tax evasion". (That was 10 paragraphs down and quoted to nobody and above a picture of the Treasure and this from the national broadcaster. Talk about travesty!)

So the article needs to be put into context. At the same time as this bill there is a similar bill Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. I'm not expert but maybe the bill the ABC has used to get your knickers in a knot has some kind of link to this other bill. Maybe that where as you think you can't walk around town with $11.000.05 of ya Nan's shranel in your back burner might to be the case. It might be if you were suspected of coming from the coin laundry then you might be looking at hard time. Just be cause the media tell you something doesn't always make it so. I'm willing to bet that even after this bill passes you will be able to hold cash and bitcoin but that the powers that be will be watching you very closely.

As I was double checking the ABC's facts I came across some other bill's that give me more concern for my civil liberities then the gansters wallet bills do.

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2019

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020

It's bad enough having google know when I need a new pair of shoes and Spotify know when I'm sitting down to Breakfast with out having the government over my shoulder.

[Trajan]

Liberty isn't causing school shootings, the lack of liberty is causing the school shootings. If children weren't forcibly herded into mass industrial indoctrination facilities and then dosed with hardcore psychotropic drugs they probably wouldn't be shooting up mass industrial indoctrination facilities. If we weren't forcing people into a demented system people wouldn't be going on demented rampages.

What you think that kids having access to firearms has nothing to do with the school shootings? So you don't blame the guns just the parents or the government? Don't think maybe it would be hard for a kid to act on impluse and go get a gun and go out shooting if maybe they made it harder to buy?