The Continuing Demonization Of Cash

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Paul-Martin Foss via The Mises Institute,

The insidious nature of the war on cash derives not just from the hurdles governments place in the way of those who use cash, but also from the aura of suspicion that has begun to pervade private cash transactions. In a normal market economy, businesses would welcome taking cash. After all, what business would willingly turn down customers? But in the war on cash that has developed in the thirty years since money laundering was declared a federal crime, businesses have had to walk a fine line between serving customers and serving the government. And since only one of those two parties has the power to shut down a business and throw business owners and employees into prison, guess whose wishes the business owner is going to follow more often?

The assumption on the part of government today is that possession of large amounts of cash is indicative of involvement in illegal activity. If you’re traveling with thousands of dollars in cash and get pulled over by the police, don’t be surprised when your money gets seized as “suspicious.” And if you want your money back, prepare to get into a long, drawn-out court case requiring you to prove that you came by that money legitimately, just because the courts have decided that carrying or using large amounts of cash is reasonable suspicion that you are engaging in illegal activity. Because of that risk of confiscation, businesses want to have less and less to do with cash, as even their legitimately-earned cash is subject to seizure by the government.

Restrictions on the use of cash are just some of the many laws that pervert the actions of a market economy. Rather than serving consumers, businesses are forced to serve the government first and consumers last. Businesses act as unpaid tax agents, collecting sales taxes for state governments and paying excise taxes to the federal government, the costs of which they pass on to their customers. Businesses act as enforcers of vice laws, refusing tobacco sales to those under eighteen or alcohol to those under twenty-one. Financial institutions, which includes coin dealers, jewelers, and casinos, are required to report cash transactions above $10,000 as well as any activity the government might deem “suspicious.” Cash becomes such a hassle that it is almost radioactive, and many businesses would rather not deal with the burden. Using cash to buy a house is becoming impossible and it is probably only a matter of time before purchasing a car with cash will become incredibly difficult also.

Centuries-old legal protections have been turned on their head in the war on cash.

Guilt is assumed, while the victims of the government’s depredations have to prove their innocence. Governments having far more time and money to devote to asset forfeiture cases than the citizenry, most victims of cash seizures decide to capitulate rather than attempt a Pyrrhic victory. Those fortunate enough to keep their cash away from the prying hands of government officials find it increasingly difficult to use for both business and personal purposes, as wads of cash always arouse suspicion of drug dealing or other black market activity. And so cash continues to be marginalized and pushed to the fringes. Stemming the anti-cash tide will require a societal attitudinal adjustment that views cash not as something associated with crime, but as a bastion of consumer freedom and a bulwark against overzealous governments.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
PoasterToaster's picture
PoasterToaster (not verified) Feb 3, 2016 7:38 PM

The morons are burning their own house down.  If they destroy cash, they destroy the last reason anyone has for supporting their system.

Durrmockracy's picture
Durrmockracy (not verified) PoasterToaster Feb 3, 2016 7:43 PM

I say good riddance to cash!

Now we get to see who the real "stackers" are...

ZH'er to cashier: "No sorry, I will not use your mark of the beast debit system but I will give you this nice Mercury Dime and a War Nickel".

Enki Anu's picture

In God we trust,
All others pay Cash.

erkme73's picture

I recently pulled out $50k from my credit union to pay for prime acreage in middle-TN (for my bug-out location).  I had to make an appointment, since they don't normally have that much cash on hand (says the CU).  When the day arrived, I was peppered with all sort of personal questions.   Where do I work?  What's the purpose of the withdrawal, etc.   I asked the teller why I had to provide this information - when they certainly didn't require it when I deposited the money.   All I got was a blank stare, and "the Fed requires it". 

Each time I pull out these large amounts, I get the third-degree.  Fortunately, there isn't much left in the account, and my cash is being well spent building my home-way-from-home.   It's 2 hours (round-trip) to the closest Walmart, and no pavement ape will ever be able to make it there on foot (without broken legs from the terrain)

prefan4200's picture

Have you attempted to fly anywhere lately?  Good luck getting through the TSA, you can bet you're on the list now......

stacking12321's picture

i just noticed a $2 fee on my account, the description on the statement was "cash deposit immediate", wtf?

i inquired with chase (yes i have a chase acct and i hate them but they have their advantages) what that means.

apparently i'm only allowed to deposit $7500 cash in my account per month, if i go over that they hit me with a fee of $2 per $1000 over that.

and this is for a *business* account!


Emergency Ward's picture

Jamie got $20 million last year for providing you with such great service.

Mr. Mandelbrot's picture

I've pulled out 5 and 6 figures numerous times and still fly all the time unmolested . . .

RafterManFMJ's picture

Nobody? Ok, I'll post it:


If they outlaw cash, only outlaws will have cash.

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

The FBI shooting in Eastern OR has shown that they no longer need or care about the 'Support'  of the rebellious few. "You and what army?"

NoBillsOfCredit's picture

Watch the video, the guy reached for his gun.

prefan4200's picture

I don't know that it has been clearly established that he is reaching for his gun.  In closeup slo-mo of that video, it appears he may have been shot in the side by the shooter on the right and was reaching to where he'd been shot.  Then the other shooter, the one on the left, gets into the act and starts firing, too.  Have you seen the slo-mo closeup video yet?  It's a little fuzzy, and I don't know that it's definitive, but it is definitely disturbing.... It looks like murder to me.

lakecity55's picture

It was premeditated murder 1.

fedupwhiteguy's picture

It looked hinkey to me also. The king's men always kill the articulate, influential leaders of the people's resistance.

jaxville's picture

  The best of the Goyim must be killed

MSimon's picture

It was tried the other way around for a while. All it did was kill off the stupid. Selection pressure at its best.

goldsansstandard's picture

The only video released was from a helicopter, no sound.

Why don't they release videos from the ground, with sound?

Kefeer's picture

That is exactly correct and he carried a pistol on the right hip, not the left side near the ribs; ask anyone who knew him.

Ignatius's picture

The authorities were shooting at the truck BEFORE LaVoy took off.  When LaVoy plowed into the snow bank, due to the road block just off a blind corner, LaVoy jumped out with his hands up. 

Go fuck yourself, you ignorant cunt.

Victoria Sharp:

Shawna Cox:

goldsansstandard's picture

I don't understand why Ms Cox was so upset. The sharpshooters were only following orders. All involved will not talk or release evidence because they are patriots who obey the law. The rancher terrorists are legal game under the NDAA.

We will never know how far up the chain of command went for this action. Perhaps , President Obama made the decision himself to protect us and the wildlife from these dangerous men and women.

I am thankful to the brave sharpshooters for protecting our liberty, and for all the others involved who remain silent, thus not distracting us from enjoying the Super. Bowl.I

Kefeer's picture

I watched the video; anyone who has can see this was set up and the FBI failed in that they did not murder everyone.  Have you listened to the audio?  Of course not; that is the important part. I guess it escaped your notice that when he was shot from behind that he still put one hand in the air and they put 4-6 more bullets in him; that is MURDER friend.  Liberalism is a mental and moral disease.


The guy was ambushed and shot in the head and no stupid enough to pull a gun on a police officer.  That man also carried his pistol on his right hip, not where the video shows. 


How much dash-cam and sound is there; plenty.  How much have you heard?  None and likely won't and if you did it would be edited; just like the other. Did you listen to the video of the woman who was there?


Not one shot was fired from the white vehicle; yet over 120 rounds were shot at the white vehicle.  Note the headlines and sound bites from the MSM; a "shoot our with FBI and Oregon State Police" and "Almost run over a officer".

rapetrain's picture

I watched the video and saw (1) a traffic stop with no probable cause and later (2) three vehicles parked in the middle of a highway, specifically positioned to be hidden by a curve and to inflict serious harm to traveling motorists.

sessinpo's picture

PoasterToaster    The morons are burning their own house down.  If they destroy cash, they destroy the last reason anyone has for supporting their system.


You won't have a choice. They control the supply chain of goods. No matter how they change the game, we are forced to play until one is totally able to live self sufficiently.

Durrmockracy's picture
Durrmockracy (not verified) sessinpo Feb 3, 2016 7:50 PM

"No matter how they change the game, we are forced to play until one is totally able to live self sufficiently."

You missed that, this is a voluntary system that we have right now and nobody is forced to play.  Free silver if you want it.

BandGap's picture

It is estimated that, at any one time, 1/4th of the money in circulation in the US is involved in some type of drug trade.


Enki Anu's picture

Can the client pay the street corner drug dealer by CREDIT CARD.?

swmnguy's picture

More to the point, can the CIA pay assassins or mercenaries with a credit card?  When the US started setting up the Iraqi quisling government, I don't remember pictures of pallet-loads of bales of gift cards; it was billions of dollars in cash, wasn't it.

They're not going to outlaw cash.  They'll make it a lot more dangerous for people to hold it, which will of course (and as usual) hurt the law-abiding the most.  And they'll keep seizing cash as they see fit, now they've turned the police loose to forage, which I'm sure is some sort 3rd Amendment violation.

SuperRay's picture

Hmmm.  I estimate that 99% of the time bandgap pulls estimates out of his ass.

lakecity55's picture

Haha, there go the payoffs to the politicians, cops and judges!

jaxville's picture

 So what?  Use that as an excuse to attack the legitimate majority? 

IridiumRebel's picture

It is estimated that, at any one time, 1/4th of the military from the US is involved in some type of protection of the drug trade.

Lorca's Novena's picture

If they ban cash, how are polticians supposed to thrive?

Affidavit: $90,000 found in congressman's freezer


10 years old, but im sure still very relevant!

MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

Cry of the Millenials: 'Why would you want to use cash?'

Durrmockracy's picture

Cry of the ZHead: "Why would I want the seller to ship right away?  I want him to wait 6 weeks for my g0ldcoin to arrive!"

Dre4dwolf's picture

Anyone demonizing cash just doesn't have enough.

LetThemEatRand's picture

One of those rare occasions where I agree with the Mises Institute in every particular.  

nmewn's picture

Well, when the logic is irrefutable ;-)

LetThemEatRand's picture

I'm not your downvote, but I agree the logic is irrefutable even if the Mises Institute on other occasions uses tortured logic, such as defending why there should be no rules against wholesale immigration.

As propagandists love to say, freedom isn't free.  There is a price to pay and it sometimes means not subscribing to pure ideology.

nmewn's picture

"...such as defending why there should be no rules against wholesale immigration."

Not sure I've seen that one, gotta link?


Oh...and I love my two troll downvoters, I thrive on their hate ;-)

LetThemEatRand's picture  "From a libertarian point of view, it is not relevant to discuss whether to support immigration policy A, B, or C. The answer is not open borders but no borders;...."

It took me 11 minutes to find those three links.

swmnguy's picture

A pure enough Libertarian, when he turns on the faucet, doesn't want water to come out.

nmewn's picture

lol...a pure enough progressive expects someone else to pay for it.

Ghordius's picture

good ones. but from a classical conservative stance, both classical socialism, (i.e. equalitarianism) and classical liberalism (including Libertarianism) are... progressive. and utopian, or bordering it

of course it's difficult to find a pure classical conservative stance in the English-speaking world because classic Liberalism is so entrenched to be considered a kind of heritage or common sense, which leads to all kind of "natural rights" which a pure classical conservative finds... cute, but not realistic

Pat Buchanan, for example, recently wrote an article that was featured on ZH. He considers himself a paleo-conservative, but he is actually a classic-liberal conservative

here my comment to his article

the "ideal state" for a (classic) liberal or a (classic) liberal conservative or a (perhaps) libertarian conservative is... the Commonwealth

i.e. the common defense of private wealth - the latter focused, historically, on land, first, and everything else deriving from that

ideally, a Commonwealth is of the landowners, by the landowners, for the landowners. meaning that land is a stake, and the commonality is in defense of this private property

ideally, a Commonwealth is structured like a common state, but voting rights and taxation are based on land ownership. either "one acre one vote" or based on valuation

compare with classic Feudalism, where a "knight's fee" is a parcel of land that is granted... on the basis that one knight is provided for defense, callable by the liege lord

compare to what early Romans found natural: every man that has walls around his property is the lord, high priest, judge and executioner of all those who dwell within: his property

compare to the Golden Liberty of the Polish Nobility, possibly the first more modern Commonwealth of Land Owners

none of this is pure Libertarianism, which is more utopian, does not contain traces of conservativism and contains traces of anarchism by it's rejection of the need of any borders a priori

nmewn's picture

I think most people consider themselves Liberal (capital L, meaning the classical Liberal) they just don't know it or associate the word "liberal" with Marxist ideology.

Being a classical Liberal simply means, leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. When that doesn't happen the walls will go up in defense, which is the right of the one(s) being assaulted.

But on the subject or walls/borders & law...the Romans had walls & law, as did the knight who didn't necessarily always tow the kings line of "law", he tolerated it to the mutual benefit of both, if only temporarily. They also had the power to "change" the structure of the world outside their walls/borders which they did from time to time with violence as required.

At the end of the day, your "property rights" have to be defended by you and you alone or in alliance with others, independent of any central authority. "Your king" could very well (at some point) decide he would like to occupy your property and your neighbors property...just because he's the king and thinks he can.

And all past laws, all mutual benefit, trust, words & deeds become moot & wholly irrelevant to the singular thing ;-)

Ghordius's picture

+1, nmewn. particularly for mentioning... walls

civilization, before the advent of the gun, used to be very, very strongly connected to walls

walls were holy. literally. the inside of any city's (or fortress) walls was where raw violence was forbidden. outside of the walls... debatable

inside of your walls, your will was law, while tradition dictated... peace and justice instead of raw violence. inside the city walls, people felt... free. like in "Liberty is Rule of Law"

and both Greeks and particularly Romans insisted on banning weapons inside the walls of cities

we could as well discuss how much of Libertarianism is connected to the New World experience which was a radical departure from this kind of traditions, with wide expanses of land up for grabs and... guns

nmewn's picture

Well, on the subject of guns (and arms generally) it is my opinion that they didn't  (or don't) want guns "inside the walls " not because of any threat to the peace among the populace but the "king" percieves it as a threat to their interpretation of law and order.

Freemen have the right to defend themselves immediately without asking for help or permission.

Ghordius's picture

nmewn, not quite. in both ancient Greece and Rome, a city under a Tyrant or a King differed from any city governed by a republican order by exactly that: the weapons of the bodyguard

take the Roman Republic's Lictors, for example. they had to take the axes off their Fasces, when entering the city, where also capital punishments were forbidden

take the case of Pipistratus, who would become Tyrant of Athens: he first convinced his countrymen to give him a bodyguard armed with clubs because the Oligarchs were attempting to his life

civics comes from city. the ancient civil freeman did not need to defend himself when in the city, he had the civil order of the city to do that. and physical attack with weapons was not only illegal, it was against the sanctity of the city, an attack against religion and the gods, punishable by up to dismemberment, religious anathema and property confiscation of the estate

of course you have to take in account the density of population inside those ancient walls. before you would even notice you might be attacked, plenty of others looking the right way would have already done it, and intervened before you would... as religion and tradition dictated. scuffles and fist fights... could be tolerated, but barely, and depending from various set ups

meanwhile, when the (classic) liberals that started revolutions here in 1848 wanted to abolish all city walls, it was to extend the city's order to the whole countryside, not the other way round

again, the "New World experience" is, in comparison, the opposite, not "about the Liberty of the City* but "about the Freedom of the Armed Countryside", if I may put it so

and if you note, American culture is still a bit ambivalent versus cities and city life, though recently cities are growing