Marc Horowitz writes:
With certain exceptions, like the mailbox example, most situations of "rent foo" require the lessor to take a risk, and he wants *some* assurance that he'll get his rented thing back. I'm not going to rent a car to someone without ID, for cash, because I have no guarantee that he isn't going to drive away with it and never come back.
Precisely. The car rental company _does_ have a continuing relationship with you, at least until you return their car. (BTW, digital escrow services may allow relative anonymity--and perhaps true anonymity--while still assuring the rental car company that they'll get paid and will get their car back. Think of this as a surety bond...though I suppose that many of those who don't have credit cards, for economic reasons, will also not have $10,000 in cash laying around to post such a bond.)
I'm not saying discrimination against cash doesn't exist. It does, and that's reprehensible. But not all cases of "plastic, yes, cash, no" are discriminatory.
I see nothing reprehensible about discrimination against certain kinds of payment. Maybe I don't want to carry $10,000 around in East L.A. and instead want to be paid with a cashier's check. Maybe I just think folding money has too many germs on it. The point is, nobody is being coerced into an economic transaction. If I offer my car for sale for $10,000 in copper pennies, that's the way it is. (There is some confusing legalistic stuff about debts and "legal tender," applying, as I understand it, to debts already incurred. But I'm arguing the principle, not the situaion in these Beknighted States.) -Tim May -- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: MailSafe and PGP available.