3 ms·
Why doesn't the argument "private companies can do whatever they want, so if you don't like being arbitrarily banned by the incumbents, then start your own bank
by josephcsible 4y ago
Why doesn't the argument "private companies can do whatever they want, so if you don't like being arbitrarily banned by the incumbents, then start your own bank and payment processor" apply here?
- RunSet 4y agoBy way of answer, a cautionary tale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_dollar_(private_currency)#Federal_Government_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_dollar_(private_curren...
- josephcsible 4y agoMy question was about a new bank that would deal in existing US dollars, not creating another new currency.
- giantg2 4y agoThe only thing I can think of is that most of the centralized systems are highly regulated at the national and international level. Without those systems, a company would not be competitive. Even entire countries have tried to create their own systems with limited success (look at Russia trying to replace Swift recently).
- pjc50 4y agoObviously it depends on whether people like the activity being banned or not?
- josephcsible 4y agoThis is basically what I was thinking. The argument is never actually sound, but people only acknowledge that when it's something they like that gets banned, instead pretending that it is a good argument when something they don't like gets banned.
- giraffe_lady 4y agoIt's not the case that the only valid position is one that is perfectly generalizable. Supporting good or necessary things is better than supporting bad things, even if they share some functional similarities. Sex workers not having access to reliable payment methods directly puts them in danger in real, quantifiable ways. The same is not true for letting white nationalists recruit teens or whatever other free speech/market economy intersection thing you can think of. We are not philosopher-automatons and may, should, use our moral judgement about which things specifically are worth our support and which are not. A perfectly consistent framework here is impossible and probably undesirable in any case. It's not that sex work is better than other things and should be endorsed because of that difference. It's that forcing sex workers out of the legitimate business process gets them killed and we have a duty to prevent that outcome.
- rendall 4y agoBanks work in a network of other banks. If you're the "sex worker bank" you yourself can get shut down
- josephcsible 4y agoIsn't this true of the Internet too? If no ISPs are willing to host you, aren't you effectively shut down?
- rendall 4y agoSure.
- ransom1538 4y agoThey did 20 years ago. Going strong: CCBill.com
- josephcsible 4y agoIf that's good enough, then why is this a story?
- seydor 4y agoCCbill cannot circumvent VISA. So now the websites that use them need to keep the goverment ID/passport of every person that posts a dick pic.
- kodah 4y agoIt's a trash argument in the first place, for starters. The people who support sex workers having an actual, functioning, non-predatory ecosystem don't suddenly flip to "freedom of speech sucks" when pressed.
- seydor 4y agobecause said companies have kicked the ladder behind them I mean people invented cryptocurrency for this reason. Then the bans started