That depends on your perspective. Our overlords have lost the war for hearts and minds of the 10% [1]. So the classic problem here is how to "drain the swamp". And this is a perfectly correct solution.
In this very forum a few months ago someone posted how they were afraid to search for Adhan -- the Muslim call to prayer -- because they didn't want to end up on a list. This approach works. It works silently, efficiently, and there is no paper trail to have to respond to in a future (one hopes) crimes against humanity tribunal.
[1]: Just a round number. The 10%(™) signifies the significant cross cutting core subset of society that the tip of the power structure, and the captive civilization, critically depends on.
Regarding negative interest rates - this is something that sounds really scary, but actually isn't. We aren't talking about a hard asset like gold - we're talking about fiat currencies. Every time your government expands the money supply and triggers inflation, you're losing money. If you try to prevent governments from setting negative interest rates, they will just pump up the money supply and make you lose money through inflation instead. There's little point in banning negative interest rates, unless you're willing to ban monetary-supply-expansion as well. And unless you're a hardcore Ron Paul libertarian, I bet you've never protested governments promoting moderate inflation.
Regarding anonymous monetary transactions, I agree that there is value in this. This can also be accomplished through cashless transactions. All you need is an aggregated prepaid debit card service. You buy the prepaid debit-card using your regular bank account, and then use that prepaid debit card to conduct anonymous transactions.
The one upside of cash is minimal transaction fees. It always annoys me that Visa takes a 1-2% cut from every single transaction. It effectively makes us all 1-2% poorer in the process. But this is a market-solvable problem if the government took adequate steps to foster competition, and ban anti-competitive tactics. We've already seen many attempts recently, such as Apple Pay, to undercut the credit card companies fees, while still allowing cashless transactions.
Overall, cash is a pain to deal with. If I never had to touch cash again, I'd be a perfectly happy man. I don't think the government should take steps to discourage/ban the use of cash, but if private merchants and individuals decide to abandon cash, the government certainly shouldn't interfere with that decision. The current benefits of using cash can certainly be replicated and had, even in a cashless society.
It's quite clear that the existing power structure "wants" to hinder anonymity, whether deliberately for more control via Orwellian crimes like "money laundering", or just emergently where no party wants to get stuck holding the bag in our defective soft-money banking system.
Cash is basically what we've got in the medium term. I've personally gone back to using cash for groceries and other various sundry purchases, because pushing back against the government+corporate surveillance panopticon is the right thing to do. This idea of anonymous e-payments is completely hypothetical until eg a proper replacement for Bitcoin arises that has untracability and can withstand nation-state attacks.
I'm under no illusions about its anonymity though - every note has a serial number right on it. It would be prudent to assume that banks record the serials of bills that are withdrawn and deposited. I don't actually think this is happening at the consumer level just yet, but I'm sure the diktat has been drawn up and is just waiting for the right 24 hour tragedy.
Cash is mixed by changing hands multiple times before being deposited, so even recording the serial numbers at withdraw and deposit time yields little information. Notes frequently pass between people who don't even know each other. At best you might be able to make some assumptions about where people shop regularly, but there's no mandatory database of what is purchased.
Your suggestion is not anonymous at all. Prepaid cards can only be anonymous when purchased with cash, and even then they can be traced back to the merchant who sold them who may be able to identify the buyer. (eg. Cameras, known to staff, etc)
I prefer societies that expect people to do the right thing and have measures in place to deal with anti-socials than societies that expect people to do the wrong thing and therefore try to control everybody for it.
syntax is important! ;)
My opinion is: Anyone thinking the government being able to track every transaction could possibly be a net good thing is delusional.
It seems freedom and autonomy matters less and less these days.
That's literally impossible.
I'm with the cypherpunks regarding nsa/etc passive collection though (which I assume you're referencing)
Passive collection of digital data has nothing to do with cash transactions though. Which is the entire premise of this comment chain.
So either you've misunderstood what we're talking about or you're schizophrenic and think all cash transactions can be tracked.
Care to elaborate?
Please explain; How is a dollar I found on the ground yesterday and placed in a random mailbox today tracked?
Oh cash, my comment was about electronic transactions, I'm in huge favour of cash. Sorry, my bad.
Tracking all money spent would give a huge additional opportunity to many government agencies to harass those they find obnoxious. I have little doubt it would get misused very soon.
Do you want to have to report that you gave that teenager down the street $20 to mow your lawn, for example? That can make you an accomplice in tax evasion if the teen doesn't report that $20, and might make you run afoul of labor laws (after all, they probably couldn't work for a landscaping company because of dangerous equipment). You are unwittingly taking part in a black market at that point.
Now, if the data is used to make laws that are actually followable and allows for normal things such as the above to take place (which would make for a great deal of changes, including drug laws), maybe it would be a good thing. It would also need to be open enough for citizens to also track government spending and other things - otherwise, it would just be totalitarian.
The meme that banning cash is a useful way to fight tax evasion is hilarious propaganda. Unreported cash transactions are tiny compared to the tax avoidance and evasion done by businesses and the rich. Banning cash doesn't make big business pay a real tax rate, nor does it prevent profits from being hidden in overseas accounts.
Blaming low tax revenue on cash is a convenient distraction. When everyone is focused on their fear that the average citizen might get away paying less taxes, nobody notices the people cooking the (non-cash) books and/o buying legislation.