4 ms·

Slippery slope argument. So you are going to run naked in the city center because public opinion about this does not match what you want.

by ozim 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ben_w 5y ago
I think you and @toomuchtodo are talking about different things. Laws, democratic or otherwise, can indeed constrain what payment providers will allow themselves to be used for. Public opinion short of law should not be able to add further constraints. IMO the question of “what should Visa and MasterCard be allowed to restrict?” is the same category of question as “what category of app should Apple and Google be allowed to restrict?”
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  > Public opinion short of law should not be able to add further constraints. Isn't reputational feedback one of the key enablers of the free market? Unless you want to move to a system that is fully centrally planned and noncompetitive, you'll have reputational differences (read: public opinion) affecting the success of a firm. To the extent that reputation affects a firm's success, the firm will make decisions (including "do we carry this unpopular thing") based on its reputation. Shall we require all firms to do business with all potential partners, regardless of reputational repercussions, or if the partner has an established history of abuse (say, a contractor who repeatedly under-delivers on contracts)?
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I see your point, but I was thinking specifically of the case where public opinion influences the behaviour of monopolies and duopolies. If there were e.g. a thousand payment providers each with 0.05-0.15% market shares, I’d agree with the free market and reputation approach; but as the number of important players gets smaller, public opinion becomes more like an plutocracy (because one dollar is one vote) without any of the institutional self-regulation governments develop out of necessity.

Slippery slope argument. So you are going to run naked in the city center because public opinion about this does not match what you want.

by ozim 5y ago

Slippery slope argument. So you are going to run naked in the city center because public opinion about this does not match what you want.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ben_w 5y ago

I think you and @toomuchtodo are talking about different things. Laws, democratic or otherwise, can indeed constrain what payment providers will allow themselves to be used for. Public opinion short of law should not be able to add further constraints. IMO the question of “what should Visa and MasterCard be allowed to restrict?” is the same category of question as “what category of app should Apple and Google be allowed to restrict?”

InitialLastName 5y ago
> Public opinion short of law should not be able to add further constraints. Isn't reputational feedback one of the key enablers of the free market? Unless you want to move to a system that is fully centrally planned and noncompetitive, you'll have reputational differences (read: public opinion) affecting the success of a firm. To the extent that reputation affects a firm's success, the firm will make decisions (including "do we carry this unpopular thing") based on its reputation. Shall we require all firms to do business with all potential partners, regardless of reputational repercussions, or if the partner has an established history of abuse (say, a contractor who repeatedly under-delivers on contracts)?
- ben_w 5y ago
  I see your point, but I was thinking specifically of the case where public opinion influences the behaviour of monopolies and duopolies. If there were e.g. a thousand payment providers each with 0.05-0.15% market shares, I’d agree with the free market and reputation approach; but as the number of important players gets smaller, public opinion becomes more like an plutocracy (because one dollar is one vote) without any of the institutional self-regulation governments develop out of necessity.