Governments worldwide are actively seeking to replace physical cash with centralized digital currencies (CBDC) that can be monitored. However, a growing number of people are becoming aware of this trend. Last week, the right-leaning Austrian Freedom Party initiated a protest against the left-wing government for disregarding a referendum on the right to use cash. Over 530,000 Austrians signed a petition supporting this referendum. Despite widespread public opposition, CBDCs continue to be promoted globally. As a result, we can expect more conflicts centered around protecting individuals’ rights to save and spend money anonymously using cash—a practice that has been in place for millennia and taken for granted. Unfortunately, this right is now under the threat of being replaced by CBDCs, which would give governments extensive surveillance and control capabilities over individuals’ finances.
Recent polls indicate that Americans overwhelmingly reject the concept of CBDCs, and opposition increases as they become more informed about them. For instance, opposition doubles when people learn that CBDCs can be used to freeze the bank accounts of political protesters. Moreover, opposition rises to 74% when people discover that CBDCs allow the government to monitor their spending. So, why do governments persist in pushing CBDCs despite widespread public dislike? The answer is simple: CBDCs are irresistible to governments that seek to monitor and control every financial transaction made by their citizens. Governments envision opportunities for social engineering, implementing reparations, or creating a social credit system akin to China’s. Furthermore, CBDCs provide a means to punish political opponents by controlling their access to funds, ensuring job security for politicians who prioritize serving the interests of the powerful elite.
How can we resist the implementation of CBDCs? The simplest approach is to prevent our governments from adopting them. Currently, central banks worldwide, including the People’s Bank of China, are conducting CBDC pilot projects without proper authorization, claiming it is for research purposes. However, just as governments should not be allowed to experiment with tools that enable mass censorship of political speech, the people should have control over the government, not the other way around. We can exercise this control by informing our elected representatives of our opposition to CBDCs and demanding that they prohibit any pilot programs. Central banks operate on self-generated budgets, utilizing their own money-printing abilities, which often exempt them from the oversight imposed by the power of the purse that controls most aspects of government operations. In fact, many central banks, including the Federal Reserve, are largely exempt from Freedom of Information requirements, unlike other government entities that must disclose their activities to the public. As Murray Rothbard noted, the Federal Reserve receives less congressional oversight, and hence less voter oversight, than the CIA. Consequently, central banks will continue to pursue their agenda until explicitly instructed by Congress to stop. This necessitates specific and comprehensive directives, similar to explaining rules to five-year-olds, including an outright ban on CBDCs and any associated pilot programs, even if they attempt to disguise them through banks or contractors.
It is our responsibility to ensure that our elected representatives take the necessary steps to prevent the implementation of CBDCs. Otherwise, we risk being confined within a digital cage that none of us voted for. We must remain vigilant and actively engage in safeguarding our financial autonomy. Until next time, stay informed and stay vigilant.
