5 ms·

Nobody should be forced to do business against their will, including banks and payment processors, except w/r/t protected classes. Political views are not a pr

Nobody should be forced to do business against their will, including banks and payment processors, except w/r/t protected classes. Political views are not a protected class. This is not rocket science; piss people off, they have every right in the world to not do deals with you. If that hurts your ability to exercise your rights, you probably shouldn't have done those things.

Proven 5y ago
Baloo 5y ago
I think that it is extremely dangerous to start freezing every single financial provider; banks/credit cards/investment firms/crowdfunding/crypto/insurance, for anyone directly or "indirectly" supporting the protests. That is insanely ripe for abuse, whether you agree with the current situation or not. If laws are being broken, arrest the perpetrators and charge them with a crime. Follow the judicial process. What is happening here has very little oversight and seems to be an entirely disproportionate response. You say that institutions have the right to 'not do deals with you', but that's not what's happening. Business is being explicitly instructed not to do business with them, what if they want to offer their services? It's not simply the 'ability to exercise rights', it is denial of a fundamental aspect of living; being able to transact with your peers. Historically this wouldn't have been such an issue, but as 'non-custodial' money is fast disappearing, it poses risks for all of us.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  If being able to transact with your peers is a fundamental right, what do you do when people sit in trucks and prevent you from doing exactly that?
  - smegma2 5y ago
    As TFA says, you arrest them and give them due process, and hold the state accountable for any mistakes in the process. Are you suggesting an 'eye for an eye' penal code? e. g. you would suggest punishing an arsonist by burning their house down? (Of course not but I guess anything is ok when you disagree with the protest to begin with)
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      I'm suggesting the government of a country ought to be able to act in defense of its citizens before charging and convicting the perpetrators. As I said in another comment, this is the expectation in other areas of law enforcement, so it makes sense to apply that here.
  - Baloo 5y ago
    A bit disingenuous as I don't believe (limited knowledge of the protest) they're stopping people from transacting, at least not at the same level/significance as freezing peoples finances. However I did already answer this, you arrest people that are breaking the law and charge them with a crime. Unless we're now happy enough to simply let politicians be judge, jury and executioner; targeting citizens as and when they see fit?
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      Pretty sure blocking major transit substantially prohibits commerce, and the degree to which that is true is not really relevant. They're doing it, and you think it's a fundamental right. And do you think literally nothing negative should happen to you at the hand of the government until you're convicted of a crime? Should police refuse to use force against someone actively breaking into a home, just because the burglar is just a "suspect"? Courts will be involved if a crime is being committed, but more importantly a right (you believe in) is being violated. The government is, in every other situation, expected to step in to provide immediate relief to the physical violation of the right to conduct commerce (again, the right you believe in) of the Canadian citizens. This is no different.
      - nate_meurer 5y ago
        I'm sure you'll likewise approve when the next conservative administration uses these emergency powers to deprive Black Lives Matter protesters (or indigenous rights protesters or whatever they have up there) and anyone who supports them of their access to banking and insurance, right? Because the BLM protests were a hundred times more disruptive to commerce, which appears to be of paramount importance to people like you. > Should police refuse to use force against someone actively breaking into a home, just because the burglar is just a "suspect"? No, the government is empowered to arrest the trespasser based on reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place. And that's what they do. > Courts will be involved if a crime is being committed No, the role of the court is determine whether a crime has been committed. > This is no different. Which is exactly why the twitter thread points out that the only correct course of action in a country with a functional rule of law is to arrest the protesters/trespassers, remove their vehicles from the streets, charge them, and follow the established due process under the law to determine their guilt and punishment. It appears the first step of this process is underway as we speak.
dcolkitt 5y ago
That’s more than fine. But banks don’t de-platform because they personally disagree with their views. They do so because of government pressure, regulation, and compliance. I guarantee you there’s a banker in the world somewhere willing to take your money no matter how heinous your views are. It’s the regulators that are the problem.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  I don't think we can really say for sure why any business does anything, only that they should be allowed to do what they decide, with some exceptions.
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    Really? You're not able to guess why Canadian banks are on the cusp of freezing accounts and cancelling credit cards of a swath of the Canadian populace? I think a quick read of that twitter thread up there might fill in some of the background for you. Or a quick google search.
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      It doesn't matter, is the salient point.
      - nate_meurer 5y ago
        It doesn't matter that you forgot to read the twitter thread (or anything else about the situation apparently) before commenting, and as a result your commentary is pure nonsequitor? Is that right?
        TameAntelope 5y ago
        Does rudeness typically get you what you want?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
beerandt 5y ago
Political views are the ultimate primitive protected class in a democracy. Otherwise, it's not a democracy.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Political views are the ultimate primitive protected class in a democracy. For...what? While there is an overlap in “protected classes” for different areas of law, they are still different for important reasons. For discrimination by government, viewpoint is necessarily protected to have a meaningful democracy. OTOH, for the same reason, for many kinds of private discrimination, political viewpoint is an anti-protected class; that is, private discrimination is not only not prohibited, but itself an essential liberty. In the US, for the federal government, both of these are part of 1st Amendment protections of speech, press, and association.
throwaway22032 5y ago
Sure. It follows immediately that we must then ensure that there aren't unnecessary middlemen involved in payments. The alternative is that you can't pay your mother rent because a third party (me) has a different political opinion to you. The banking system is too important to be disconnected from for political reasons, it's about as close to an "off switch" you can get. You "can't" force the phone company to carry my calls, so maybe they could cut me off and I couldn't speak to my grandma on the other side of the country any more. Basically we have two options. For a sufficiently important system, we can either decentralize it such that there's no middleman to get in the way (physical cash is an example of this) or we can force the carriers to act neutrally.

Proven 5y ago

Baloo 5y ago

I think that it is extremely dangerous to start freezing every single financial provider; banks/credit cards/investment firms/crowdfunding/crypto/insurance, for anyone directly or "indirectly" supporting the protests. That is insanely ripe for abuse, whether you agree with the current situation or not. If laws are being broken, arrest the perpetrators and charge them with a crime. Follow the judicial process. What is happening here has very little oversight and seems to be an entirely disproportionate response. You say that institutions have the right to 'not do deals with you', but that's not what's happening. Business is being explicitly instructed not to do business with them, what if they want to offer their services? It's not simply the 'ability to exercise rights', it is denial of a fundamental aspect of living; being able to transact with your peers. Historically this wouldn't have been such an issue, but as 'non-custodial' money is fast disappearing, it poses risks for all of us.

TameAntelope 5y ago
If being able to transact with your peers is a fundamental right, what do you do when people sit in trucks and prevent you from doing exactly that?
- smegma2 5y ago
  As TFA says, you arrest them and give them due process, and hold the state accountable for any mistakes in the process. Are you suggesting an 'eye for an eye' penal code? e. g. you would suggest punishing an arsonist by burning their house down? (Of course not but I guess anything is ok when you disagree with the protest to begin with)
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    I'm suggesting the government of a country ought to be able to act in defense of its citizens before charging and convicting the perpetrators. As I said in another comment, this is the expectation in other areas of law enforcement, so it makes sense to apply that here.
- Baloo 5y ago
  A bit disingenuous as I don't believe (limited knowledge of the protest) they're stopping people from transacting, at least not at the same level/significance as freezing peoples finances. However I did already answer this, you arrest people that are breaking the law and charge them with a crime. Unless we're now happy enough to simply let politicians be judge, jury and executioner; targeting citizens as and when they see fit?
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    Pretty sure blocking major transit substantially prohibits commerce, and the degree to which that is true is not really relevant. They're doing it, and you think it's a fundamental right. And do you think literally nothing negative should happen to you at the hand of the government until you're convicted of a crime? Should police refuse to use force against someone actively breaking into a home, just because the burglar is just a "suspect"? Courts will be involved if a crime is being committed, but more importantly a right (you believe in) is being violated. The government is, in every other situation, expected to step in to provide immediate relief to the physical violation of the right to conduct commerce (again, the right you believe in) of the Canadian citizens. This is no different.
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      I'm sure you'll likewise approve when the next conservative administration uses these emergency powers to deprive Black Lives Matter protesters (or indigenous rights protesters or whatever they have up there) and anyone who supports them of their access to banking and insurance, right? Because the BLM protests were a hundred times more disruptive to commerce, which appears to be of paramount importance to people like you. > Should police refuse to use force against someone actively breaking into a home, just because the burglar is just a "suspect"? No, the government is empowered to arrest the trespasser based on reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place. And that's what they do. > Courts will be involved if a crime is being committed No, the role of the court is determine whether a crime has been committed. > This is no different. Which is exactly why the twitter thread points out that the only correct course of action in a country with a functional rule of law is to arrest the protesters/trespassers, remove their vehicles from the streets, charge them, and follow the established due process under the law to determine their guilt and punishment. It appears the first step of this process is underway as we speak.

dcolkitt 5y ago

That’s more than fine. But banks don’t de-platform because they personally disagree with their views. They do so because of government pressure, regulation, and compliance. I guarantee you there’s a banker in the world somewhere willing to take your money no matter how heinous your views are. It’s the regulators that are the problem.

TameAntelope 5y ago
I don't think we can really say for sure why any business does anything, only that they should be allowed to do what they decide, with some exceptions.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  Really? You're not able to guess why Canadian banks are on the cusp of freezing accounts and cancelling credit cards of a swath of the Canadian populace? I think a quick read of that twitter thread up there might fill in some of the background for you. Or a quick google search.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    It doesn't matter, is the salient point.
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      It doesn't matter that you forgot to read the twitter thread (or anything else about the situation apparently) before commenting, and as a result your commentary is pure nonsequitor? Is that right?
      - TameAntelope 5y ago
        Does rudeness typically get you what you want?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

beerandt 5y ago

Political views are the ultimate primitive protected class in a democracy. Otherwise, it's not a democracy.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Political views are the ultimate primitive protected class in a democracy. For...what? While there is an overlap in “protected classes” for different areas of law, they are still different for important reasons. For discrimination by government, viewpoint is necessarily protected to have a meaningful democracy. OTOH, for the same reason, for many kinds of private discrimination, political viewpoint is an anti-protected class; that is, private discrimination is not only not prohibited, but itself an essential liberty. In the US, for the federal government, both of these are part of 1st Amendment protections of speech, press, and association.

throwaway22032 5y ago

Sure. It follows immediately that we must then ensure that there aren't unnecessary middlemen involved in payments. The alternative is that you can't pay your mother rent because a third party (me) has a different political opinion to you. The banking system is too important to be disconnected from for political reasons, it's about as close to an "off switch" you can get. You "can't" force the phone company to carry my calls, so maybe they could cut me off and I couldn't speak to my grandma on the other side of the country any more. Basically we have two options. For a sufficiently important system, we can either decentralize it such that there's no middleman to get in the way (physical cash is an example of this) or we can force the carriers to act neutrally.