> A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why. When Rivers replied that he was headed to LA to make a music video, the agent asked to search his bags. Rivers complied. He was the only passenger singled out for a search by DEA agents – and the only black person on his portion of the train
Never answer with any info, never consent to searches.
I think there's a recent and ongoing bipartisan bill in the US trying to fix some of the worst aspect of civil asset forfeiture.
With some luck ten years from now there may be a bill in the US trying to fix some of the worst aspect of KYC/AML (like regular people getting their bank accounts closed for no reason and without any explanation).
it's almost as if power doesn't want to do things democratically. who cares if it's the government with it's boot on my neck, or a corporation with a boot on my neck, either way, I'm getting trod on!
Banking is optional; the problem is that many businesses insist on bank cards to transact. It’s important that businesses be compelled to accept cash for all transactions.
It’s particularly bad in some cities. Rather than enforcing access to the special hell that is US retail banking, just prohibit businesses from ripping out their existing cash infrastructure.
Even with a bank account, your ability to transact is subject to surveillance and seizure/freezing without evidence or probable cause. Cash has none of these problems.
I'm not sure I would agree that banking is optional in today's society.
Canada has laws[1] intended to ensure access to banking, with $10M fines for violations. Not familiar with them myself and wondering how effective they are, and whether anyone has sued and won. It's maybe a bit ironic considering how the government here improperly locked a lot of people out of their funds during the trucker protests (the inquiry found collateral damage where people completely uninvolved were affected).
Canada does the same thing with shutting down bank accounts based on "suspicious transactions" and then turning around and saying "we can't tell you why".
Pretty sure it's a global agreement around terrorist funding.
I cannot get paid by my company without a bank account. No company would pay me my salary in cash. A bank account is no longer optional if you want to live a normal life.
If they issue you a check you can take it to the banking institution listed on the check and they will honor it. The downside is, now you’re dealing with cash (and some companies went DD only a long time ago).
Most banks (in the US) will charge the presenter a fee to cash a check drawn on an account they service. [1]
It's reasonable to demand that your employer make your whole pay (less withholdings) available to you, and if you are unable to maintain a bank account, and their bank charges a fee to honor checks, that's not really reasonable if you are paid by check.
New Zealand doesn't have cheques any more. Banks here totally phased them out a couple of years back.
The USA will also make checks obsolete over time.
Plus cash is disliked at many retailers and cash is not acceptable at some locations (e.g. my skifield only accepts cards - I was told it is because the nearest small-town bank won't accept cash deposits from the skifield). I suspect our government will slowly discourage cash 1. to prevent tax evasion (cash jobs), and 2. to prevent illegal purchases (e.g. weed). Those are the main uses for cash that I personally see others use cash for (I use cash because I like using it and I like privacy).
I wouldn’t necessarily expect us to follow New Zealand’s example. We’ve accumulated a lot of methods for exchanging money without really discarding any in particular.
New Zealand is a small country way out in the middle of the South Pacific Ocean 2.5K miles (or over 4K kilometers) away from its nearest neighbor and with a population smaller than NYC. The United States is 50 stubborn ass States plus the Fed’s occupation in southern Maryland. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand has an address in Wellington, is owned by the New Zealand government and answerable to Parliament. The Federal Reserve system isn’t even a single bank with a single board of directors, isn’t wholly owned by the US Government and isn’t directly answerable to Congress.
There’s no easy way to make a lazy comparison between us and have it be convincing. Parts of the Federal Government would likely love to see the United States become a cashless society but they don’t always get what they want.
Australia has a population bigger than NYC and "Australia is set to be a cheque-less society by the end of the decade, if the federal government has its way."
Zealand has a population and land area similar to Oregon. Might as well say NZ has a much bigger population than Wyoming - NYC is irrelevant.
Cheques have slowly disappeared because of economic reasons: the transaction costs/risks involved, and because electronic transfers have benefits. The economic forces are likely similar in the states. I believe the change has little to do with the NZ government nor the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.
Kinda missing the forest for the trees here. What I’m driving at is that New Zealand and the United States are not easily comparable and just because New Zealand is doing a thing it does not follow that the United States also shall successfully pursue and accomplish the same policy objectives. Even a straight comparison between Australia and New Zealand is difficult and both their system of government and their banking system are closer in form with each other than with the United States, and there's a lot fewer people in a lot fewer places to just straight up disagree and subvert the efforts and policy objectives of the Federal Government, no matter what they may be. If a Presidential candidate ever did make it a platform issue, you could probably expect his opponents to take the opposite approach.
What the United States lacks is the kind of central control that a Westminster-style of government can exercise, even over cash money and checks, and there are a lot more institutions with some say over the continued prevalence of cash so even as its usage declines it is unlikely to completely disappear even in our lifetimes. Even if Chase stops giving their customers checkbooks, it doesn’t mean M&T will, and even if M&T does, it doesn’t mean there won’t be a bank that makes it a point to offer free checkbooks as a value add to small business owners that want to continue issuing paper checks to their employees. The form money takes here tends to be additive, and it is rare for a system to ever completely disappear. I mean next on the chopping block is probably Zelle followed by ACH of all things now that we have FedNow, and even that’s not necessarily going to happen.
You seem to think that government or federal control is required to phase out cheques. Maybe some legislative roadblocks needed removal (e.g. removing laws forcing companies or departments to accept cheques?).
AFAIK it was economic and convenience forces that caused the disappearance of cheques over a couple of decades. Banks discouraged chequebooks by making the accounts and books expensive. Retailers at most risk of receiving bad cheques started not accepting cheques (e.g. gas stations). Handling fees for cheques. Chequebooks not available to people with credit risk. Businesses stopped paying using cheques - instead they needed a bank account. New Zealanders got more familiar with cards and direct debits, so fewer New Zealanders (individuals and businesses) used cheques.
AFAIK it wasn't a top-down activity in New Zealand. Australia's move seems to be more government based but I would guess Oz is part way down the tracks of discouraging cheques.
The last time I remember handling a cheque in NZ was back in the 2000's (dividend payment). I remember thinking cheques were quaint when I worked in the US in the 90's: we have been slowly discouraging them in NZ for decades.
It is just like how we are not paid in cash at the end of the week no more - systemic change happens slowly.
A company may 'want' to hire you, but most companies also want their employees to be at least somewhat fungible. If you're too difficult to hire, they will look again.
Banking is not optional in today's advanced societies, and the sooner we recognize that, the sooner we'll have proper regulations mandating a minimum level of banking service, eg. Limited deposits, withdrawals, debit/secured cards.
Solution, bring back post office banking or banking through the social security admin. Turn 18 you get a banking and benefits card. Do that and most people won't ever have to do business with a private bank, ever.
Millions of people live normal lives without bank accounts.
The solution to the problem is not to force retail banks to extend their terrible customer service to all of society, it’s to ensure the utility of cash. Cash works great even if the banks (or the state) hate you.
This depends highly on the country. Cash doesn't work so great in most of the EU anymore. In Spain and Greece for example, it's illegal to buy anything with more than 500 euro cash I believe.
They will then bring in a drug sniffing dog they've trained to notify the police officer of a presence of drugs on command, and voila, there's reasonable grounds to search your vehicle.
"One of my in-laws was EOD in the US Army, and has rode in this vehicle. You need to find a dog that will not signal on explosives of any kind. Furthermore, the clock on this stop, per <supreme court decision about unreasonable roadside detention>, is starting to run a bit long. Here is my attorney's card."
Good luck with that. There are multiple reasons cops use to do a search if they want to. Probable cause can range from seeing something sticking out from under your seat, speeding, suspicion of being under influence, or being in proximity of another crime. Pair that with the incentive of civil forfeiture profits and it’s not looking like a good idea to travel with 25k
I am convinced that if the American police forces wish to detain, arrest, or take your money, they will find a reason to do so, or create one where none was there before. Assets forfeiture, detainment, and arrest without legitimate judicial reason is deeply unfair. Regardless of innocence that may be found and adjudicated later, the damage to ones reputation, employment, and even banking can be disastrous. Recourse is often costly or non-existent.
The one time I was asked to be searched while driving I declined. They immediately called a drug dog, yanked its leash, and called it a drug hit. I then hung out for an hour while they confirmed I was a poor college student with zero drugs.
Driving with any amount of cash above a few hundred will get you robbed by the police in asset forfeiture. It happens everyday around the country to small business owners that deal with a lot of cash.
Banking is definitely not optional. Certain transactions, specially those done online, require digital payments that cannot be done with physical cash. It's increasingly a required part that's needed if you want to participate in modern society, and the lack of access to such banking systems forces people to adopt subpar services as a replacement.
In the ideal case, banking should be a utility like power & water: A necessity for modern life, without which certain daily routines would not be possible.
I believe it's optional for you, but not for the great majority of people. Lack of access to banking services specifically holds back a lot of people (look up 'unbanked').
You can walk into any USPS office and buy up to $1000 in money orders anonymously. What prevents them from selling anonymous prepaid cards the same way?
It's already highly anti-democratic, but imagine what an aggressive, oppressive government will do with this power.