4 ms·

I think "the right to spend and receive money" is (or should be considered) a human right. Being able to live is for a large part contingent on paying people a

by rendaw 4y ago

I think "the right to spend and receive money" is (or should be considered) a human right. Being able to live is for a large part contingent on paying people and/or receiving money from people. Companies involved with payments should be regulated on this basis. This doesn't address the banking thing, although spending and receiving money at times requires a bank account.

pvillano 4y ago
what would (does?) a government run electronic payment system look like?
eru 4y ago
Eh, the right not to touch money that was involved in activities you don't like has just as much standing in my opinion. Or do you want to force people to deal with money made from 'blood diamonds' or from fossil fuels or tobacco or abortion clinics or gay wedding cakes or pineapple pizza etc? (I deliberately picked examples from different points of politics and with different levels of severity.) Instead of regulating more heavily, we should look into lowering barriers to entry, so that people doing legal things can find someone to facilitate their payments (without the need to force anyone to facilitate payments they disagree with).
- Ekaros 4y ago
  On level of individuals I would agree. You should be free to choose your customers. But when you are the dominant player let's say 20%+ of market alone or with your partners it really changes. At that point no, you should not be able to choose your customers. Outside individual reasons like repeated fraud or attempts of such.
- rendaw 4y ago
  I think sibling has a stronger argument, but I just want to add that, even if you take a free market approach for everything else, I think paying and receiving money deserves to be treated separately. Monetary transaction is fundamental to civilization, more than any other single service or good. You very nearly can't participate in civilization and can't at all in the free market without being able to freely spend and receive money. And this is the first time in history that monetary flow has been centralized to this degree, and it's hard to imagine things going less digital.

by rendaw 4y ago

pvillano 4y ago

what would (does?) a government run electronic payment system look like?

eru 4y ago

Eh, the right not to touch money that was involved in activities you don't like has just as much standing in my opinion. Or do you want to force people to deal with money made from 'blood diamonds' or from fossil fuels or tobacco or abortion clinics or gay wedding cakes or pineapple pizza etc? (I deliberately picked examples from different points of politics and with different levels of severity.) Instead of regulating more heavily, we should look into lowering barriers to entry, so that people doing legal things can find someone to facilitate their payments (without the need to force anyone to facilitate payments they disagree with).

Ekaros 4y ago
On level of individuals I would agree. You should be free to choose your customers. But when you are the dominant player let's say 20%+ of market alone or with your partners it really changes. At that point no, you should not be able to choose your customers. Outside individual reasons like repeated fraud or attempts of such.
rendaw 4y ago
I think sibling has a stronger argument, but I just want to add that, even if you take a free market approach for everything else, I think paying and receiving money deserves to be treated separately. Monetary transaction is fundamental to civilization, more than any other single service or good. You very nearly can't participate in civilization and can't at all in the free market without being able to freely spend and receive money. And this is the first time in history that monetary flow has been centralized to this degree, and it's hard to imagine things going less digital.