It used to be unlawful for anyone to turn right at a red traffic light. Cyclists broke that law so frequently that lawmakers decided to exempt cyclists from the restriction. And rightfully so.

Of course our adversaries (those who refuse cash) are leveraging the same effect. Merchants and organisations are refusing cash even in situations where they have a legal obligation to accept cash. They are getting away with it because pushover consumers simply pay electronically when given no other option. Because they just want to get on with their day. These pushover consumers are failing in their moral duty to hold oppressors to account. This tyranny of convenience is so widespread that everything is being setup for lawmakers to easily remove the cash acceptance obligation. They will justify it by pointing out lack of challenges or problems manifesting from unlawful anti-cash actions.

It’s because of defeatism. Most people I speak to believe cash will not prevail, so why fight it? That’s the widespread thought pattern.

How many debtors struggle to pay their bills when they can simply insist on cash payment? Most creditors are not calling the bluff because /they/ are too lazy to setup a cash register. People should be exploiting this. It’s a rare opportunity to put up a moral fight and also profit (in the form of an interest-free loan, effectively, because the money is still owed).

This is not just speculation. It’s working for me. But 1 person’s perpetual debt is not enough for a creditor to justify buying a cash register. There needs to be a critical mass of people doing this to reverse the forced-banking direction.

Warning about some regions, like Germany

An interesting case emerged in Germany whereby all residents in the country are required to pay radio fees (comparable to BBC fees in the UK). The radio authority refuses cash, which is obviously a reckless policy because in effect it imposes forced-banking on everyone. It was challenged by a couple Germans and they won.

What’s noteworthy here in addition to the win is that they paid their radio fees as cash into an escrow account. It’s unclear how necessary it was, but it was a gesture to ensure that their opponent could not claim that they were just looking for an excuse to not pay. So the take-away is that in some countries (certainly not all) freedom fighters should consider whether the escrow account is needed.

Is it civil disobedience?

Normally civil disobedience is a form of protest that entails breaking a bad law. But this is a bizarre scenario where the establishment is actually breaking the law by refusing cash. Insisting on paying in cash is our right (of course, lawfullness depends on region and also circumstances). Feels like civil disobedience but in any case it’s safer than that because a court has an obligation to take your side.