> The problem isn't digital cash, the problem is having payment infrastructure that's controlled by only one or two companies (like Visa and Mastercard). Payment infrastructure needs to be neutral with multiple payment providers on it, so when a bank is being unreasonable, you can just switch to another.

But we know this isn't going to happen. At least not in the US. We have seen a massive consolidation of power in nearly every sector of the economy. That's not going to change. Nobody in our government seems to think it is a big enough problem to do anything useful to stop it.

I mostly agree, except that I think for the foreseeable future it is still essential to have an individually-held, government-backed currency so transactions can't be blocked by any third party (including the government itself) arbitrarily and without notice. However, I think the principle goes beyond just money issues.

All of the examples mentioned by BiteCode_dev have at least three things in common.

1. The company in question is in a dominant position as a provider of some product or service.

2. That product or service is important or essential to a lot of people.

3. The company is not significantly regulated by law.

Many of them could be dealt with by regulating all financial services and communications services companies. I think there is a lot of merit in offering a "common carrier" principle in these sectors, where a business provides a service but does so strictly neutrally, with neither any control over how people then use it nor any responsibility for those people's actions.

I also think there is a lot of merit in saying that if a business wants to take a more active role than that, it must also accept a corresponding increase in liability. In particular, it should then be subject to not only legal actions by individuals but also regulatory actions by an independent, government-backed agency with sufficiently strong statutory powers that a business can get stomped if it persistently and knowingly abuses people.

The other thing that IMHO we need but don't currently have in many cases is sufficiently strong consumer protections (and this should extend to small businesses dealing with much larger businesses, or any other situation where one side is effectively in full control of the terms of any deal). The danger is having dominant businesses, whether monopolies or otherwise, providing important or essential services but then having powers to damage others, whether wilfully or simply through negligence, because of the control they retain over those products or services. Under the umbrella of what is important or essential, I do include things like operating systems for PCs and phones, or hosting email, or providing almost any kind of large-scale digital marketplace facility; these are technologies that have become essential to living a "normal life" and participating actively in society. It's not just about the ability to conduct financial transactions or communicate, vital as those also are.