Hacker News Reader

Comment by shin_lao | Hacker News Reader

I don't see what the problem is.

In France if you carry more than 10,000 € in cash, you need to make a custom declaration.

It's also illegal to buy something for more than 3,000 € in cash.

If you think a person who wants to carry or transact a supposed worth of 10,000 EUR or 3,000 EUR or higher, without being tracked, is performing an action befitting of the word "criminal" (and often the harsh, cruel treatment that comes with this word) -- and if you think these actions warrant subjecting the entire society to search and seizure (and the dramatic consolidation of power that it grants) -- then, unfortunately, you don't see what the problem is.

You might not be bothered by it. But I implore you to look past your own comfort and respect that others are bothered -- to at least see the possible problems. I'll reduce the terms. Many people don't want their personal, consensual affairs tracked, limited, and dictated by a central authority. A central authority for sake of discussion is the entity that tends to strip people of their physical and psychological humanity by means of economic persecution, containing people in cages, subjecting people to various forms of isolation and torture, and killing people. Thus, in no uncertain terms, many people don't enjoy increasing the power (i.e. legal and otherwise) of that central authority. They especially don't like doing so, the more they see the system on which it operates as being oligarchical, abusive, and unethical.

How many times must it be repeated through history's political systems to understand that predicating laws upon [search and seizure] is a fast-track ticket to tyranny? The United States has been riding this road for a long time. See: Prohibition / Drug War. Do you see a problem with an economic incentive for subjecting people to searches? Do you see a problem with their labor/value stolen? Would you see a problem if it were a mafia setting terms (hell, they could even let you vote and call it democratic, wink-wink) and then pulling you over to intimidate you and take as they see fit -- or possibly worse? One of the biggest problems is when people don't see the problem.

I do.

Just because it's that way in France I see no reason to start thinking it's the new normal.

You don't see a problem with those laws?

most people don't

Perhaps because most people don't readily have access to thousands of euro/dollars/etc, and thus see less problem with assuming anyone who does is up to no good.

Absolutely not. Why would I want to pay in cash? It's neither convenient nor safe.

It's silly to force an unnecessary third party into a business transaction if you dont need to. Money exists for a reason. Cash is king.

Beyond any reason, I agree with this most.

Our current way of living insists on third party participation during even A -> B trades, it's ridiculous and inefficient.

Are you saying because you, shin_lao, doesn't prefer cash, that it's ok for the government to go around seizing cash from people who do prefer it? What of the seller only accepts cash? What if the buyer (someone other than you) prefers cash?

It's illegal for the seller to accept cash beyond 3,000 € (see the law above).

Important point: checks and wire transfers are free.

You said cash is neither convenient nor safe. I've paid with cash, and I find it convenient and safe. It's especially convenient when the seller only accepts cash, since a non-cash transaction would be impossible. I have no problem with France's law against cash (since I'm not a French resident). France also doesn't have freedom of the press, and I'm ok with that.

> France also doesn't have freedom of the press, and I'm ok with that.

I'm not okay with that, nor should someone else be ok with it.

You said cash is neither convenient nor safe. I've paid with cash, and I find it convenient and safe.

If it's generally known that nobody carries large amounts of cash, I imagine it might make muggings a bit less common.

It's not so much you personally carrying lots of cash that's safe or unsafe, it's what fraction of the population carries lots of cash that makes things safe or unsafe.

People are mugged for tiny amounts of money.

Muggers are after enough money to buy drugs, and so they don't care if it's a few dollars.

It's ok to walk around with a $25,000 rolex publicly visible. Contradiction.

In the SF Bay Area, when people are mugged, they are not mugged for cash, they are mugged for their belongings.

I used checks and wire transfers and had to pay a fee for both. I've never been charged for making a cash payment.

"this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" printed on every dollar(s) bill in circulation should settle the argument. Cash should always be an option. It's the law. If that law is invalid, how can I know that the law that says "don't pay for more than X in cash" is valid?

In France, don't you have to buy your matches from the government? (because you have too many laws, not everybody should)

Also, according to the video, I don't know what the lower limit is but they seized $2,500 from someone (less then 2000 euros at current rates).

In the USA, withdrawing $10,000 in a single day requires a form from the IRS

Is that so? Than I guess you won't mind it either if I walk up to you and order you to hand it over, right?

This is interesting. You given an interesting law about an European country and you get down voted. HN has become a close minded community.

You certainly added to the discussion with an interesting fact. Thank you.

http://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/eu-...

The statements of the law in France seem like useful information; those aren't what the downvotes come from. The statement that "I don't see what the problem is." invites the downvotes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com