I am curious, shouldn't our thought process be more aligned with "how can we create checks and balances so that government doesn't get to use this whenever they please?" Like, what's stopping "the government" to call a swat/missile strike to your house because they don't like you, except for these checks and balances? Surely they have all other ingredients necessary? As far as I understand government already has other ways of making your life incredibly inconvenient, so why should we try to halt what most people see as technological progress instead of trying to legislate responsible uses of governmental power?
Once again, genuinely confused about why one of these approaches are being talked about a lot more on this thread. If I am missing something very obvious, I would appreciate a pointer.
They can’t really swat everyone who does something they don’t like, that doesn’t scale.
It’s why private arms ownership (in the millions) and ability to use cash (also in the millions) IS one of the (only effective) checks and balances.
The idea of the state having effective state-based checks and balances to restrain the power of the state is nonsense. We tried that and got a military-industrial takeover of all 3 branches via universal communications surveillance of every single judge, congressperson, and chief executive/cabinet by unelected military spies. There are people in the USG who know the location tracklogs and call history, iMessage history, iCloud Photos, email contents, and fb/wa/ig DM contents of every single mistress, sex worker, bag man, and drug dealer that services every individual member of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, as well as their entire personal and professional staff, and can threaten or blackmail any of them at will. In theory there are checks and balances over these spies, but in practice once they have that kind of power, they have enough power to keep abuses of same out of the newspaper.
It’s like the police stopping police crime; it is a nice idea in theory but does not happen in the real world.
To maintain a free society you must maintain the practical ability for millions to do things that are legal but that the state REALLY does not want them to do. Payments are #1 on that list as they enable publishing and organizing.
Also, the USG does call in missile strikes on US citizens (as well as their entire families) that they simply don't like, and checks and balances don't stop that at all:
Another angle to diffuse their power here is the idea of radical transparency.
Once everything is public, and you have nothing to hide, it is very difficult to be blackmailed or coerced in the traditional ways govts have thought about this tactic.
You're not going to find hundreds of people to staff a legislature (or the tens of thousands that comprise their personal and professional staff) that aren't vulnerable to extortion by disclosing their use of sex workers, drugs, deviant behavior, illicit cash payments to cover up same, etc - nor should you! It's just not going to happen. Furthermore, even if you believe in such systems, you want to optimize for leadership, vision, and fairness, not unextortability. Otherwise you just get a calcified bunch of squares running things.
Any governing body large enough to manage all of the affairs of a country of hundreds of millions or billions of people is going to comprise in the thousands of people, and there will be dirt for the finding on almost all of them. Remember, you don't need actual proof - you just need enough circumstantial evidence that the threat of cancellation/impeachment/resignation/etc is credible.
Oh, another reason: using payment cards means that every transaction is linked to your identity. If the state doesn't like you, it's very hard for them to stop you from buying a hot dog from a street vendor for $5 in cash. It's very easy for them to point-and-click stop you from transacting (without due process) if everything is card payment only. With the way most people buy mobile service (identity-payment-card-linked), this makes it possible to e.g. deny transactions (including purchase of food) to everyone that was in a certain street protest.
The ways they have of making your life inconvenient escalate to making your life completely unlivable (e.g. unable to buy food/clothing/shelter, or ride a bus) in the absence of anonymous payment systems.
BSA/PATRIOT make it illegal to issue payment cards in the US that aren't strong identity-linked.
Cash isn't so much useful because it's cash, it's useful because it's not linked to identity. If anyone could buy prepaid payment cards that didn't require identity, then this would be much less of an issue (but would still link multiple transactions together in time and space, which is its own privacy issue).
If there is no need to have third-party controlled video cameras in your bedroom, and you can opt-out of the "service", you do not need to regulate their use.
Of course laws against abuse should be developed so that when you need the service you are protected - but the main thing is that the service is not forced on you.
Once again, genuinely confused about why one of these approaches are being talked about a lot more on this thread. If I am missing something very obvious, I would appreciate a pointer.