Operation Choke Point was run by the government within the framework of the existing banking sector. It was enacted by DoJ (one part of the government) then:
"In August 2014, U.S. Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer introduced a bill that would limit law enforcement's ability to restrict access to the banking system as a response against Operation Choke Point.[12]"
So it was stopped by Congress, another part of government.
The existence or non-existence of cash wouldn't have made a difference to the ability of pay day lenders or firearms dealers to continue operating because I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be able to get access to cash to conduct their business unless they had bank accounts!
My point is that a government supplied electronic payment system would make no difference to the ability of a government to engage in anything more or less nefarious than they can already do, and the legislative process is capable of dealing with that (and if it's not, cash won't save you either).
I'm having trouble parsing your argument, to be honest. In a cashless society, the government has a near-absolute power to shut down or penalize any economic activity it deems undesirable - whether that activity is criminal or not.
In a society that permits cash, the government's reach is still long, but not nearly as complete.
Unless you always expect governments to be perfectly benevolent and well-attuned to the needs of all social groups, it seems prudent to fight for cash to remain a valid payment choice.
I think the overarching point was that you should trust the government with anything because they have the power to make laws, and if they wanted to make laws that harmed you they would just do that. I disagree, however.
No the overarching point was stated pretty clearly as:
> ... a government supplied electronic payment system would make no difference to the ability of a government to engage in anything more or less nefarious than they can already do
> In a cashless society, the government has a near-absolute power to shut down or penalize any economic activity it deems undesirable - whether that activity is criminal or not.
Evidently it can do so in a society with cash also, eg. Operation Choke Point.
"In August 2014, U.S. Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer introduced a bill that would limit law enforcement's ability to restrict access to the banking system as a response against Operation Choke Point.[12]"
So it was stopped by Congress, another part of government.
The existence or non-existence of cash wouldn't have made a difference to the ability of pay day lenders or firearms dealers to continue operating because I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be able to get access to cash to conduct their business unless they had bank accounts!
My point is that a government supplied electronic payment system would make no difference to the ability of a government to engage in anything more or less nefarious than they can already do, and the legislative process is capable of dealing with that (and if it's not, cash won't save you either).