WEF: Somebody Has To Be In Charge Of Rationing Freedom
That’s why only Central Banks can create digital currencies
The Fed recently put out a white paper, Data Privacy for Digital Asset Systems, which contends that the expectation of privacy in digital cur
“Concepts such as the desire for ‘cash-like anonymity’ are based on false underlying assumptions.”, is the crux of it (quick, somebody tell the Monero team, and everybody else already deploying anonymizing protocols and applications for digital assets).
The subtext is that there can be some privacy and confidentiality safeguards built into CBDCs, but at the end of the day those would still be subject to being overridden or dispensed with. The paper doesn’t come out and say that, but it does make oblique references:
“confidentiality implies that collected and stored data is protected from view in some manner, such as obfuscation or access restriction, and available only to authorized actors.”
Which of course makes you wonder who exactly will be authorized and what will their capabilities be? It truly is the trillion dollar question.rencies (read: CBDCs) stems from misunderstanding how digital systems work.
If we keep this paper in mind while we consider the World Economic Forum’s recent article on digital currencies, privacy and freedom, which put a finer point on it, while paying lip service to the desire for privacy in those characteristic WEF-speak euphemisms:
“A digital cash replacement should not enable criminality, but there should be some freedom to transact with complete privacy.”
“Some freedom” implies that any freedom will be subject to approval, because either you have complete freedom, or you don’t.
“Some freedom” coming from the WEF especially, sounds a lot like their “Life in 2030” vision, which is mostly known for point #1: “You’ll own nothing and be happy”.
Point #4 is “You’ll eat much less meat. An occasional treat, not a staple. For the environment, and for your health”.
In other words, according to the WEF, digital currencies will afford some privacy and some freedom. Just like how in 2030 you’ll be able to eat some meat. (As long as you behave.)
Throughout the piece the impetus toward digital currencies is ascribed to consumer preferences for convenience – that nation states and NGOs (including the WEF) are relentlessly pushing us there, along with digital IDs and health passports, is never mentioned.
Through their preference for the convenience of electronic payments, we will inadvertently lose the historic freedom that only cash provides: to spend our money on what we want, with whom we choose.
It’s always amusing to watch the Davos-darlings pretend to grapple with thorny ethical issues:
As governments and central banks consider introducing retail central bank digital currencies (CBDC), they must therefore answer the following: Once the last cash payment is made, does this mean our historic right to make payments that are not observable or censorable by the state will end on the same day? Is that what we want?
The answer, of course, is a resounding “yes” if we’re to remember some of the more breathless pronouncements from their conclaves:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/wef-somebody-has-be-charge-rationing-freedom