The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.In response to the World War("s"), many NATO-zone countries established U.S.-like laws, including the Miranda-esque warnings to the arrested, which Americans can most readily see employed in British crime shows.
To be effective, all of the techniques discussed in the series have required a constant, telescreen-like interference of tax-farmers in the persons, houses, papers, and effects of productive livestock. No banks are licensed domestically, or treatied with internationally which do not constantly and incessantly monitor tax identification numbers of some type, and report on the activities associated with such tax identification numbers ("TINs") for farming scripture in various zones.
Among the many vile specifics that Madison could not envision in composing his rights were the notion that a "government" would have the global reach and cheap technology to know every single time a "citizen" earned something, traded something, bought something, sold something, et cetera. In order to justify various tax structures, such as VATs or income taxes, farmers maintain an understanding of the marketplace, monitor all transactions therein, and require self-funded reporting of all transactions in order to ensure extraction of maximum possible shares. Ergo when you sign up for a bank account, your TIN is recorded, and any transaction then associated with that TIN becomes government property beyond the end of any given asset's functionality. You buy something, the transaction is recorded, you are paid, the transaction is recorded, et cetera. "Secure papers" cannot exist, because in a world including privacy, very few people would do business with a "government," ergo farmers would receive not enough.
People and collectives who develop alternative currencies are killed, such that cooperating governments are "the only game in town." Attempts to use official currency in private run afoul of governments, ergo the only major sustainable secret-currency operations are government funded, e.g., "drug dealing gangs" or "rebel groups with mysterious access to newer military SAMs." Cash deposit and withdrawal requirements are suggestive enough that their reporting is mandatory, such that if you sell your neighbor a car, he has to report his withdrawal and you have to report your deposit, such that the transaction can be tracked on both ends. There remain small black zones for intra-farm trade, such as "You fix my sink and I'll have a look at your knee," which can theoretically exclude governments, but the inability to plan for future solvency without a private storehouse of cash makes one or more participating governments the only choice sustainable without the development of alternative militaries to protect such choices. Groups which try to establish their own private economies are crushed more decisively than anyone else, e.g., Saddam's alternative oil transfer system results in X million dead Arabs while public quantification results in 0 dozen arrests.
As monitoring technology has increased, we've seen farmers lagging to achieve, but still achieving, development of more advanced extractive systems. The vast septillions in wealth lost to Europe and America in funding various state taxing agencies, producing mountain ranges of paperwork even in the post-paper age, were necessary to deal with the computer, where fresh "billionaires" are minted, and unknowing planners removed, to establish monitored transaction networks wherein the farmers obtain their laborless spoils. The American presidential office's most important function in shaping world history is probably the destruction of Europe, but FDR's use of "old age pensions" to register newborn infants as computerized tax cattle via TINs may prove more effective in time, particularly when the American Social Security system is contrasted with similar exploits across the entire NATO-zone after the European wars. Europe's immigrants, too, are like America's elderly in the 1930s, happy to sign up for benefits with no conception of what will happen to their children's children in future trans-mechanized labor states.
Cashless economies, or total monitoring, is to be contrasted with older farming systems, where rulers used estimated crop yields and title records to extract certain quantities from individuals and groups. As now, people could theoretically live "outside the system" in some capacity--by farming in less-monitored lands, using cash hordes, et cetera--and much of history speaks of the ability of governments to eliminate strays from physical and recorded existence. People contemplating regional secession, space travel, oceanic settlements, et cetera, will likely meet similar fates, unless preplanned and managed to ultimate tax service by farsighted externality-minimizers.
In society, the material need for a collective defense of some kind has always proven effective at seducing farmers into arrangements where it often takes many years to recognize how much is being skimmed, at which point the process is such a given that few dare question it in whispers (or, more sustainably, in loud tax-funded protests with managed exit strategies). The market for real (cheap) labor is utterly destroyed by the monitoring economy, resulting in temporary measures of worker movement that require wars to cloud over lest untrackable populations become a future liability.
And this conflict reveals an interesting tension between monitoring and market needs: the need for somewhat un-monitored systems to allow for tranquilizing livestock behavior. It is a similar tension to that seen in entertainment media. Consider the television, where viewers' memories are horridly short, but still somewhat present, and the development of new pap is required in order to keep happy hordes feeling that "something is happening" and life has a purpose (other than being farmed). The content of entertainment is not, strictly speaking, important, but it takes people time to absorb it, ergo the need to break work shifts apart enough to permit NFL time. Ergo work cannot be constant, ergo loss--cost of doing business. Similarly, the monitored tax farm requires total monitoring, yet the illusion of financial freedom caused by impulse purchases (suddenly spending $4 on gum or $400,000 on a stupid house) is largely driven by the physical sensation of handing over cash and/or receiving product. This has slowly evolved as people have been taught to enjoy social rituals such as swiping cards or applying for a mortgage, but will those rituals become strong enough to effectively replace all impulsive decisions? Moneyed minds want to know. In the cashless economy, will people still buy scandalous news at the checkout? If they can swipe right from the couch, then not really remember or care about what might later be in their archives, maybe--but what about the small population who notices that the extra substance isn't high quality, or that the archives are cyclically deleted, thereby the transaction is meaningless?
Dysgenic breeding and pedagogy can manage or eliminate troublesome populations, but the real tension comes from the transition between populations which expect a candy bar at the checkout line, and are not as satisfied with purchasing by swiping right, but are otherwise perfect citizens. Imagine a stereotypical ideal citizen: fat dude with occasional part-time jobs, a little unfocused street crime against other livestock in his past, and general contentment with things except that he wants more stuff. Enough booze or heroin or candy, enough football and pop-star sex recording scandals, keeps him happily watching until a profitable death. Will he be satisfied with the cashless world?
Yes, of course; some manner of menu layout or interactivity component will satisfy him. All of the residual response buttons will retain their illusory strength. What sorts of systems will be put in place to conformize those, though, who do not watch enough? Who retain a feeling of dissatisfaction with world-as-is and challenge, in some accidental form, the farm? Time audits? Projected telescreens monitored by ensouled applications too clever to fool, too miserable to care about the lives of the meatspace luckies they hate and envy?
Sleep may be a hurdle more proximate than death. Or simultaneous--if couch-man falls asleep for nine hours, that's nine hours lost. If he takes his pills, he can be kept awake, but how can brains be designed for constant consciousness? Will people feel that something is missing when they've lived their whole lives without sleep? Will that feeling be anticipated and guarded against, or will it be a forgotten danger that saves someone in the end?