If you think a person who wants to carry or transact a supposed worth of 10,000 EUR or 3,000 EUR or higher, without being tracked, is performing an action befitting of the word "criminal" (and often the harsh, cruel treatment that comes with this word) -- and if you think these actions warrant subjecting the entire society to search and seizure (and the dramatic consolidation of power that it grants) -- then, unfortunately, you don't see what the problem is.
You might not be bothered by it. But I implore you to look past your own comfort and respect that others are bothered -- to at least see the possible problems. I'll reduce the terms. Many people don't want their personal, consensual affairs tracked, limited, and dictated by a central authority. A central authority for sake of discussion is the entity that tends to strip people of their physical and psychological humanity by means of economic persecution, containing people in cages, subjecting people to various forms of isolation and torture, and killing people. Thus, in no uncertain terms, many people don't enjoy increasing the power (i.e. legal and otherwise) of that central authority. They especially don't like doing so, the more they see the system on which it operates as being oligarchical, abusive, and unethical.
How many times must it be repeated through history's political systems to understand that predicating laws upon [search and seizure] is a fast-track ticket to tyranny? The United States has been riding this road for a long time. See: Prohibition / Drug War. Do you see a problem with an economic incentive for subjecting people to searches? Do you see a problem with their labor/value stolen? Would you see a problem if it were a mafia setting terms (hell, they could even let you vote and call it democratic, wink-wink) and then pulling you over to intimidate you and take as they see fit -- or possibly worse? One of the biggest problems is when people don't see the problem.
Perhaps because most people don't readily have access to thousands of euro/dollars/etc, and thus see less problem with assuming anyone who does is up to no good.
Are you saying because you, shin_lao, doesn't prefer cash, that it's ok for the government to go around seizing cash from people who do prefer it? What of the seller only accepts cash? What if the buyer (someone other than you) prefers cash?
"this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" printed on every dollar(s) bill in circulation should settle the argument. Cash should always be an option. It's the law. If that law is invalid, how can I know that the law that says "don't pay for more than X in cash" is valid?
You said cash is neither convenient nor safe. I've paid with cash, and I find it convenient and safe. It's especially convenient when the seller only accepts cash, since a non-cash transaction would be impossible. I have no problem with France's law against cash (since I'm not a French resident). France also doesn't have freedom of the press, and I'm ok with that.
You said cash is neither convenient nor safe. I've paid with cash, and I find it convenient and safe.
If it's generally known that nobody carries large amounts of cash, I imagine it might make muggings a bit less common.
It's not so much you personally carrying lots of cash that's safe or unsafe, it's what fraction of the population carries lots of cash that makes things safe or unsafe.
The statements of the law in France seem like useful information; those aren't what the downvotes come from. The statement that "I don't see what the problem is." invites the downvotes.
In France if you carry more than 10,000 € in cash, you need to make a custom declaration.
It's also illegal to buy something for more than 3,000 € in cash.