PayPal Bans YouTube Competitor Bitchute Without Explanation

[Swordsmyth]

Payment processor PayPal has permanently banned video platform BitChute from using its services.
BitChute, a competitor of Google’s video giant YouTube, released a statement addressing PayPal’s decision to sever ties with the company on Wednesday.
“A few hours ago BitChute received a notice that our PayPal account has been permanently limited, with immediate effect, and that we will no longer be able to accept or send payments,” the statement reads.

PAYPAL BANS BITCHUTE @bitchute (https://twitter.com/bitchute?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) https://t.co/MPkH4Ejoux pic.twitter.com/uqzmMbH2hd (https://t.co/uqzmMbH2hd)
— Nick Monroe (@nickmon1112) November 14, 2018 (https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1062756130248683520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
“BitChute is pro-free expression which is a universal human right. Furthermore, censorship and deplatforming are poor ways to tackle societal problems as they merely create echo chambers that can lead to bigger problems in the long run.”
“It’s important to platform all ideas, as this exposes them to immediate opposition and allows for a public deconstruction of any flaws they may contain. If you are against bigotry or racism or hateful ideologies, you should be pro-free expression,” the statement concluded.

More at: https://www.infowars.com/paypal-bans-youtube-competitor-bitchute-without-explanation/

[r3volution 3.0]

In before someone claims the feds should enforce anti-trust laws (you know, for liberty)

[brushfire]

In before someone claims the feds should enforce anti-trust laws (you know, for liberty)
Sometimes you have to suspend liberty to promote it...

[r3volution 3.0]

Sometimes you have to suspend liberty to promote it...

https://i.chzbgr.com/full/3037977344/h829106C7/

I'm sure that will go swimmingly.

[CCTelander]

Sometimes you have to suspend liberty to promote it...


What? Are you angling for a spot on Sworsmyth's "hit list"?

[Wooden Indian]

Silence the detractors and make your extremist positions "the norm".

[RonPaulMall]

This is the reason the libertarian movement is pretty much dead right now and why so many Ron Paul people have moved over to Trump. The libertarian response of "just start your own...." has been proven ridiculous. Yeah, you can start your own Youtube, but when you try they'll just revoke your domain name, or cut off your hosting services, or refuse you DDoS protection, and if all that doesn't work they'll just cut off your access to the financial system entirely. Libertarianism doesn't have an answer to a small cabal of people who aren't necessarily motivated by financial considerations controlling all the key choke points of the system.

The only solution is to either expropriate these people's company's and expel them from our country, or put them in graves. And that requires collective action.

[r3volution 3.0]

This is the reason the libertarian movement is pretty much dead right now and why so many Ron Paul people have moved over to Trump. The libertarian response of "just start your own...." has been proven ridiculous. Yeah, you can start your own Youtube, but when you try they'll just revoke your domain name, or cut off your hosting services, or refuse you DDoS protection, and if all that doesn't work they'll just cut off your access to the financial system entirely. Libertarianism doesn't have an answer to a small cabal of people who aren't necessarily motivated by financial considerations controlling all the key choke points of the system.

The only solution is to either expropriate these people's company's and expel them from our country, or put them in graves. And that requires collective action.

There's no reason for libertarians to join in the orchestrated outrage at the fate of the culture-right socialists.

...for reasons which are fairly clear:


The only solution is to either expropriate these people's company's and expel them from our country, or put them in graves. And that requires collective action.

[dannno]

This is the reason the libertarian movement is pretty much dead right now and why so many Ron Paul people have moved over to Trump. The libertarian response of "just start your own...." has been proven ridiculous. Yeah, you can start your own Youtube, but when you try they'll just revoke your domain name, or cut off your hosting services, or refuse you DDoS protection, and if all that doesn't work they'll just cut off your access to the financial system entirely. Libertarianism doesn't have an answer to a small cabal of people who aren't necessarily motivated by financial considerations controlling all the key choke points of the system.

The only solution is to either expropriate these people's company's and expel them from our country, or put them in graves. And that requires collective action.

There were a few libertarians back in the day in the late 18 century who actually fought for freedom..

Then we have the cucks on this forum with their nuts cut off saying we should just sit back and accept the tyranny that has been instituted to silence us.

[enhanced_deficit]

"Sometimes to save Free Speech, you have to kill it".

November 7, 2018.
President Trump said on Wednesday that he's open to working across the aisle with Democrats to regulate social media
In a lengthy press conference a day after the midterm elections that saw the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, Trump was asked if social media companies were unfairly censoring conservative voices and if he would work with the opposition party to rein in their power.
"Believe it or not, I'm really one that really likes free speech," Trump told reporters. "A lot of people don't understand that. When you start regulating, a lot of bad things can happen. But I would certainly talk to the Democrats if they want to do that. And I think they do want to do that."




That said, MAGA supporters/funders are getting bit out of hand lately.


PayPal billionaire Peter Thiel 'becoming key Donald Trump adviser'
PayPal founder's employees reportedly refer to him as 'the shadow president'
Sunday 26 February 2017https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5989f2441400002000ecfc18.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_nou pscale
Trump called Peduto, wanted to talk death penalty after synagogue shooting, Peduto says
Nov 5, 2018
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/ci...s/201811050141 (http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2018/11/05/Donald-Trump-Bill-Peduto-phone-call-synagogue-shooting-death-penalty/stories/201811050141)






Paypal bans Gab following Pittsburgh shooting - The Verge
Oct 27, 2018 - Earlier today, a gunman walked into the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and killed eleven people before being apprehended by police. The suspect has since been identified as 46-year-old Robert Bowers, who appears to have had a history of anti-Semitic speech on ...

Robert Bowers considered Gavin McInnes 'Proud Boys' fellow ...
Oct 28, 2018 -



PT is a nefarious war mongering globalist lobby tool.

Look into Palantir.



Related

Facebook, Apple, YouTube and Spotify ban Infowars' Alex Jones (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?525098-Facebook-Apple-YouTube-and-Spotify-ban-Infowars-Alex-Jones&)

PayPal shuts down accounts for Proud Boys and founder McInnes (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?528285-PayPal-shuts-down-accounts-for-Proud-Boys-and-founder-McInnes-as-well-as-antifa-groups/page2&)

[Grandmastersexsay]

This is the reason the libertarian movement is pretty much dead right now and why so many Ron Paul people have moved over to Trump. The libertarian response of "just start your own...." has been proven ridiculous. Yeah, you can start your own Youtube, but when you try they'll just revoke your domain name, or cut off your hosting services, or refuse you DDoS protection, and if all that doesn't work they'll just cut off your access to the financial system entirely. Libertarianism doesn't have an answer to a small cabal of people who aren't necessarily motivated by financial considerations controlling all the key choke points of the system.

The only solution is to either expropriate these people's company's and expel them from our country, or put them in graves. And that requires collective action.

Do you think youtube receives any advertising payments through PayPal? The only reason this site would care about being suspended by PayPal is because they relied on donations.

The free market doesn't guarantee businesses that you like will succeed, it only guarantees profitable businesses will succeed.

[r3volution 3.0]

This bears repeating (and repeating and repeating):


The free market doesn't guarantee businesses that you like will succeed, it only guarantees profitable businesses will succeed.


The free market doesn't guarantee businesses that you like will succeed, it only guarantees profitable businesses will succeed.


The free market doesn't guarantee businesses that you like will succeed, it only guarantees profitable businesses will succeed.


The free market doesn't guarantee businesses that you like will succeed, it only guarantees profitable businesses will succeed.


The free market doesn't guarantee businesses that you like will succeed, it only guarantees profitable businesses will succeed.


The free market doesn't guarantee businesses that you like will succeed, it only guarantees profitable businesses will succeed.


The free market doesn't guarantee businesses that you like will succeed, it only guarantees profitable businesses will succeed.


The free market doesn't guarantee businesses that you like will succeed, it only guarantees profitable businesses will succeed.


The free market doesn't guarantee businesses that you like will succeed, it only guarantees profitable businesses will succeed.


The free market doesn't guarantee businesses that you like will succeed, it only guarantees profitable businesses will succeed.


The free market doesn't guarantee businesses that you like will succeed, it only guarantees profitable businesses will succeed.


The free market doesn't guarantee businesses that you like will succeed, it only guarantees profitable businesses will succeed.

/thread

[Swordsmyth]

This bears repeating (and repeating and repeating):

























/thread
So, just how do you justify this breach of contract?

[specsaregood]

In before someone claims the feds should enforce anti-trust laws (you know, for liberty)

Naw, we should only do it if a Monarch thinks its a good idea.

[r3volution 3.0]

So, just how do you justify this breach of contract?

What breach of contract?

Post the contractual provision which they violated.

[Swordsmyth]

Naw, we should only do it if a Monarch thinks its a good idea.
We are witnessing the merger of private ownership and government power, it is nothing less than Neo-feudalism.

It is no wonder our resident monarchist supports it.

It will not end with the creation of a libertarian paradise.

[Swordsmyth]

What breach of contract?
PayPal's



Post the contractual provision which they violated.
That is what you need to provide about Bitchute.

[r3volution 3.0]

PayPal's

That is what you need to provide about Bitchute.

In other words, you have no evidence that PayPal breached its contract; you're just speculating (hoping).

Since I just posted selections from PayPal's TOS a few days ago in re another "OMG Tyranny!!!" thread, I'm not inclined to do it again.

Speaking of that thread:






"Well, yea, the free market's great in theory, PayPal should be allowed to deny service to people in theory, but [insert call for state intervention]."

Please cite said call for state intervention.

Since she calls this tyranny, and rejects the libertarian argument in favor of discrimination, what else could she want?

In previous threads, you people have called for the state to penalize Facebook for deleting "conservative" content.

I see no reason to assume you would draw the line here.

So you admit you are just making things up to protect the tyrannical left from criticism?

LOL, let's see what she says.

If she says that she supports PayPal's right to discriminate, then I'll admit I jumped the gun (not at all unreasonably).

If she wants the government to "do something" to prevent this "tyranny," then I'll have been correct.

...



For now, as it stands, there are Anti-trust laws in place and they need to be used.Ding ding ding

And thoughts (apologies, admissions...) on your mind?

[Swordsmyth]

In other words, you have no evidence that PayPal breached its contract; you're just speculating (hoping).

Since I just posted selections from PayPal's TOS a few days ago in re another "OMG Tyranny!!!" thread, I'm not inclined to do it again.

Speaking of that thread:



...



And thoughts (apologies, admissions...) on your mind?
PayPal didn't even explain why this time, that means they don't even have a lying excuse.

[r3volution 3.0]

PayPal didn't even explain why this time, that means they don't even have a lying excuse.

That means they decided to let people like you spin their wheels; they'll lose a trial when toupeed pigs fly over the moon.

...because their contract gives them total discretion to cancel their relationships.

On another note, do you think you can manage an acknowledgement about donnay?

She did in fact want state intervention to solve the "problem," via anti-trust law - no?

[Swordsmyth]

That means they decided to let people like you spin their wheels.

On another note, do you think you can manage an acknowledgement about donnay?

She did in fact want state intervention to solve the "problem," via anti-trust law - no?
She hadn't when you made your claim up out of thin air.

[r3volution 3.0]

She hadn't when you made your claim up out of thin air.

Which proved to be absolutely correct, correct?

[r3volution 3.0]

@Swordsmyth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=65299)

Are you trying to prove my point that you're intellectually dishonest?

[Swordsmyth]

@Swordsmyth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=65299)

Are you trying to prove my point that you're intellectually dishonest?
How?

You made wild claims without evidence and then got luck about one poster.
I don't have to apologize for calling you out about your wild claims when their wasn't any basis for them.

[r3volution 3.0]

How?

You made wild claims without evidence and then got luck about one poster.
I don't have to apologize for calling you out about your wild claims when their wasn't any basis for them.

LOL

[CCTelander]

@Swordsmyth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=65299)

Are you trying to prove my point that you're intellectually dishonest?


That's a tough choice.

[specsaregood]

We are witnessing the merger of private ownership and government power, it is nothing less than Neo-feudalism.
It is no wonder our resident monarchist supports it.
It will not end with the creation of a libertarian paradise.


Do you still have a paypal account?

[Swordsmyth]

Do you still have a paypal account?
I never had one.

[specsaregood]

I never had one.

I don't really believe you. But anyways, you should be encouraging others to cancel theirs.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't really believe you. But anyways, you should be encouraging others to cancel theirs.
Well you can believe what you want but I never had one and I encourage everyone to cancel theirs.

[specsaregood]

Well you can believe what you want but I never had one and I encourage everyone to cancel theirs.

your time would be better spent convincing people to cancel or stop using paypal than asking for your own enemy to regulate them, just saying...

[Swordsmyth]

your time would be better spent convincing people to cancel or stop using paypal than asking for your own enemy to regulate them, just saying...
Where have I done that?

[dannno]

your time would be better spent convincing people to cancel or stop using paypal than asking for your own enemy to regulate them, just saying...

I think it is important to get this information out not so that we can advocate for state intervention, but so people have a discussion about their motives for censoring conservative speech. What kind of funding or motivation are they receiving for engaging in this behavior?

The problem is that if a few people like us are the only ones to leave paypal, then it is irrelevant. If the discussion is at least had, and a broad consensus can be formed that there is a problem then it would make way for some consumer choice actions that could actually carry some consequence.

I mean, if you have a website and you can pay by credit card or some random payment system virtually nobody belongs to.. and your competitor has paypal which virtually everybody has, then how does quitting paypal benefit you if you lose significant business or go out of business? By having the discussions about this unfair treatment and encouraging it on a broader platform, you can frame it in a way that shows people how the establishment maligning conservatives can help bring people together to encourage payment systems that treat people and their beliefs more equally.

[dannno]

It's also important to remember there are two goals which can be reached here..

1) Convince paypal to treat their customers fairly

2) Convince people to leave paypal for a more fair payment service

It doesn't HAVE to be #2

The thing is, Rev 3 is clearly advocating for NEITHER of these goals because Rev 3 doesn't like bitchute, gab, Alex Jones, etc...

[Swordsmyth]

It's also important to remember there are two goals which can be reached here..

1) Convince paypal to treat their customers fairly

2) Convince people to leave paypal for a more fair payment service

It doesn't HAVE to be #2

The thing is, Rev 3 is clearly advocating for NEITHER of these goals because Rev 3 doesn't like bitchute, gab, Alex Jones, etc...

The only place for government action here is if the aggrieved parties sue for breach of contract/false advertising.

[donnay]

In other words, you have no evidence that PayPal breached its contract; you're just speculating (hoping).

Since I just posted selections from PayPal's TOS a few days ago in re another "OMG Tyranny!!!" thread, I'm not inclined to do it again.

Speaking of that thread:



...



And thoughts (apologies, admissions...) on your mind?

No apologies, I stated "for now." Because that is all we have, at the moment, to begin to fight these monopolies that governments have protected in the past.

As it stands now, for years, government has only helped these monopolies with corporate welfare and strong-arming the smaller business bogging them down with regulations. Hopefully this can wake up people, once and for all. that free markets, without government interference, is what is needed.

[AZJoe]

The free market doesn't guarantee businesses that you like will succeed, it only guarantees profitable businesses will succeed.

Sure sounds great. Wish we had a free market.

[Wooden Indian]

PayPal is the devil and yes, everyone please cancel yours, I have.

[r3volution 3.0]

No apologies, I stated "for now." Because that is all we have, at the moment, to begin to fight these monopolies that governments have protected in the past.

As it stands now, for years, government has only helped these monopolies with corporate welfare and strong-arming the smaller business bogging them down with regulations. Hopefully this can wake up people, once and for all. that free markets, without government interference, is what is needed.

You want the state to punish PayPal for shutting down your friends.

[donnay]

You want the state to punish PayPal for shutting down your friends.

If Paypal gets away with arbitrarily cancelling a person's account, then what will stop any other payment services from doing the exact same thing?

Do you use a bank?

[enhanced_deficit]

Trump "Freedom Medal (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?528305-Trump-to-award-Sheldon-Adelson-s-wife-with-a-Medal-of-Freedom&)" is probably in the works for PayPal founder for next year.

[Wooden Indian]

You want the state to punish PayPal for shutting down your friends.

You switched this around, R3v.

THEY seek to PUNISH those that would stand against the perverse.

By cutting off the ability to buy and sell- THEY are shutting THEIR ENEMIES down. Enemies that look an awful lot like you and me.

[TheCount]

If Paypal gets away with arbitrarily cancelling a person's account, then what will stop any other payment services from doing the exact same thing?

Nothing.

[donnay]

Nothing.

Well get used to having nothing, because if Paypal gets away with this, others will follow suit and you will have no legal recourse to buy or sell.

Christians need to pay close attention to these signs.

[dannno]

This bears repeating (and repeating and repeating):



/thread

What free market?

5:50


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQmuDWQ2ip8

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?528468-Rand-Paul-on-CNN-11-15

[TheCount]

Well get used to having nothing, because if Paypal gets away with this, others will follow suit and you will have no legal recourse to buy or sell.

Is your belief that the government should force businesses to provide services to people that you like restricted to just the banking sector, or does it apply to all things?

If I were to search through your post history to find your opinions on forcing bakers to make gay wedding cakes, what would I find?

[Anti Federalist]

You want the state to punish PayPal for shutting down your friends.

Yes.

OR the state can abolish all banking controls and regulations thus allowing myriad competitors into the market to fill the gap.

One or the other...decide.

[Swordsmyth]

Well get used to having nothing, because if Paypal gets away with this, others will follow suit and you will have no legal recourse to buy or sell.

Christians need to pay close attention to these signs.
TheVampire will not have nothing, he is on their side.

The wages of sin can be quite lucrative in this life.

[donnay]

TheVampire will not have nothing, he is on their side.

The wages of sin can be quite lucrative in this life.

Ah... but our time here is but of a blink of an eye, that's what they don't seem to understand.

[r3volution 3.0]

You switched this around, R3v.

THEY seek to PUNISH those that would stand against the perverse.

By cutting off the ability to buy and sell- THEY are shutting THEIR ENEMIES down. Enemies that look an awful lot like you and me.

I don't need PayPal; if it never existed I would be experiencing a dramatically, radically, totally, ...unchanged world.

Who cares? ..maybe others feel differently.

But they have the right to serve whom they please anyway.

Your discomfort is not their need.

[r3volution 3.0]

If Paypal gets away with arbitrarily cancelling a person's account, then what will stop any other payment services from doing the exact same thing?

Do you use a bank?

Do you own a home?

Suppose that I show up one day and insist to be let inside in the name of some nonsensical political horseshit.

A reasonable response on your part would be to shoot me.

Agree?

[donnay]

Do you own a home?

Suppose that I show up one day and insist to be let inside in the name of some nonsensical political horse$#@!.

A reasonable response on your part would be to shoot me.

Agree?

Sounds like you're talking about open borders. We all have a natural right to protect ourselves.

[Wooden Indian]

I don't need PayPal; if it never existed I would be experiencing a dramatically, radically, totally, ...unchanged world.

Who cares? ..maybe others feel differently.

But they have the right to serve whom they please anyway.

Your discomfort is not their need.

I don't eat Kellogg's; were Kellogg's poisoned, it wouldn't effect me... I'm a Quaker oats man. LOL This kind of logic will always befuddle me.

You don't use PayPal, and I'm glad to hear that.

I guess that settles it.







Just one thing... you're a Visa Card man, then? Mastercard, perhaps?

Ah, no, no. Of course not. A man like yourself would never stoop so low as to trade in anything but good old greenbacks- cash money... but a fiat man, just the same.

That is unless.. could it be... you trade exclusively in precious metals. Silver bars and gold bullion, is that it? A secret handshake at Walgreens, and they tell you how many ounces of silver that box of Magnum condoms will set you back, I bet. Did I guess right?

Oh, nevertheless... I'm being silly. You're not directly affected- so who cares, amirite?

[Dangergirl]

This bears repeating (and repeating and repeating):

The free market doesn't guarantee businesses that you like will succeed, it only guarantees profitable businesses will succeed.[/thread

How is this situation free market? It's being 100% manipulated, not by government but by corporate agenda. I don't see how this is free market.

Suppose you own a cake shop and you bake great cakes in a great profitable location, that line you quote insinuates you will be successful because of your own destiny. But suppose your frosting supplier decides they don't want to sell to you anymore because you drive a Ford and their owner likes Chevy's. How can you still be successful with no frosting? Your argument in this thread is that it's ok even though Ford and Chevy have nothing to do with the supply chain or services agreed between your cake company and the frosting supplier. That is discrimination.

This is the case with Paypal and Bitchute. Bitchute did not ask for special treatment like non-gender binary financial services from Paypal, they took the services that Paypal offered to everyone. Paypal in turn decided to deny them for no apparent reason and that to you is free market?

I don't get the reasoning here.

Yes, once upon a time a Christian baker refused to bake a gay wedding cake. He did not refuse to sell a gay couple a cake. They were free to take what he offered, or not. That is free market.

[BrooklynZoo]

...suppose your frosting supplier decides they don't want to sell to you anymore because you drive a Ford and their owner likes Chevy's. Your argument in this thread is that it's ok even though Ford and Chevy have nothing to do with the supply chain or services agreed between your cake company and frosting.

This is the case with Paypal and Bitchute. Bitchute did not ask for a special non-gender binary service from Paypal, they took the services that Paypal offered. Paypal in turn decided to deny them for no apparent reason and that to you is free market?

I don't get the reasoning here.

That actually is exactly how a FREE market works. In your example, you don't have a right to the frosting company's product. They don't have to sell it to you or price it as you decide unless they have entered into a binding contract with you. They can have any reason they wish, or none at all. Just because you don't like it does not entitle you to frosting, or PayPal. It's not a human right. Unless there is a contract specifically requiring PayPal to give proper cause for termination, that is what they can do. Do business with someone else, make your own or encourage like minded people to create a business which matches your needs.

[specsaregood]

That actually is exactly how a FREE market works. In your example, you don't have a right to the frosting company's product. They don't have to sell it to you or price it as you decide unless they have entered into a binding contract with you. They can have any reason they wish, or none at all. Just because you don't like it does not entitle you to frosting, or PayPal. It's not a human right. Unless there is a contract specifically requiring PayPal to give proper cause for termination, that is what they can do. Do business with someone else, make your own or encourage like minded people to create a business which matches your needs.

That is true; but we don't live in a FREE market as businesses are NOT free to do as they wish in many situations. The problem is the law not treating all the same. Either everybody should be part of the protected class, or none be protected.

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't eat Kellogg's; were Kellogg's poisoned, it wouldn't effect me... I'm a Quaker oats man. LOL This kind of logic will always befuddle me.

You don't use PayPal, and I'm glad to hear that.

I guess that settles it.

...

Just one thing... you're a Visa Card man, then? Mastercard, perhaps?

Ah, no, no. Of course not. A man like yourself would never stoop so low as to trade in anything but good old greenbacks- cash money... but a fiat man, just the same.

That is unless.. could it be... you trade exclusively in precious metals. Silver bars and gold bullion, is that it? A secret handshake at Walgreens, and they tell you how many ounces of silver that box of Magnum condoms will set you back, I bet. Did I guess right?

Oh, nevertheless... I'm being silly. You're not directly affected- so who cares, amirite?

The substantive issue is quite simple.

PayPal is a private enterprise which is (or ought to be) free to dispose of its property as it pleases: do business (or not) with whom it pleases.

And that is the end of the story, or ought to be.

But the class of persons who inhabit this forum these days don't know/care about such things.

[specsaregood]

The substantive issue is quite simple.
PayPal is a private enterprise which is (or ought to be) free to dispose of its property as it pleases: do business (or not) with whom it pleases.
And that is the end of the story, or ought to be.

Yes it should be, but it isn't. Paypal is not allowed BY LAW to say "we don't want to do business with you because you are black, gay, a woman or a manatee.
And that is the problem, either they should have to serve everybody or let them be free to choose.



But the class of persons who inhabit this forum these days don't know/care about such things.
blah, blah, blah. the world is full of colors.

[r3volution 3.0]

How is this situation free market? It's being 100% manipulated, not by government but by corporate agenda.

:confused:

Problems already....


Suppose you own a cake shop and you bake great cakes in a great profitable location, that line you quote insinuates you will be successful because of your own destiny. But suppose your frosting supplier decides they don't want to sell to you anymore because you drive a Ford and their owner likes Chevy's. How can you still be successful with no frosting?

If there's a free market (or anything resembling one) in frosting, I simply buy from another supplier.

...I also cuss out my supplier for being a jackass, of course, but respect his right to exercise his property rights.


Your argument in this thread is that it's ok even though Ford and Chevy have nothing to do with the supply chain or services agreed between your cake company and the frosting supplier. That is discrimination.

Correct

A synonym for discrimination would be choice.


This is the case with Paypal and Bitchute. Bitchute did not ask for special treatment like non-gender binary financial services from Paypal, they took the services that Paypal offered to everyone. Paypal in turn decided to deny them for no apparent reason and that to you is free market?

Correct


Yes, once upon a time a Christian baker refused to bake a gay wedding cake. He did not refuse to sell a gay couple a cake. They were free to take what he offered, or not. That is free market.

A free market would be the baker being free to "discriminate," i.e. choose with whom he likes to do business.

If he refuses otherwise valuable customers, he loses those customers to the competition, and the world turns.

There's no problem.


That actually is exactly how a FREE market works. In your example, you don't have a right to the frosting company's product. They don't have to sell it to you or price it as you decide unless they have entered into a binding contract with you. They can have any reason they wish, or none at all. Just because you don't like it does not entitle you to frosting, or PayPal. It's not a human right. Unless there is a contract specifically requiring PayPal to give proper cause for termination, that is what they can do. Do business with someone else, make your own or encourage like minded people to create a business which matches your needs.

Well put

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes it should be, but it isn't. Paypal is not allowed BY LAW to say "we don't want to do business with you because you are black, gay, a woman or a manatee.
And that is the problem, either they should have to serve everybody or let them be free to choose.

So, because private enterprise is currently hamstrung by some anti-discrimination laws, there ought to be more anti-discrimination laws?

...Also, since I identify as a manatee, my partner and I are now going to be suing you.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/c5/9e/94c59ea6beddb136c7c9ec3834a6a9b6.jpg

[specsaregood]

So, because private enterprise is currently hamstrung by some anti-discrimination laws, there ought to be more anti-discrimination laws?


Not more, a single one that affects everybody instead of putting people into groups. I may disagree with a law; but I find it more important that all are treated equally under the law.

[r3volution 3.0]

Not more, a single one that affects everybody instead of putting people into groups. I may disagree with a law; but I find it more important that all are treated equally under the law.

So, a law requiring PayPal (or, I suppose Facebook or similar abominations) to serve everyone...?

[Swordsmyth]

The biggest problem in all of this is government subsidizing connected corporations/oligarchs and inhibiting competition, if they are allowed to continue that and add Neo-Feudalism through political activist crony corporations the only possible outcomes will be absolute tyranny or armed revolt.

[r3volution 3.0]

The biggest problem in all of this is government subsidizing connected corporations/oligarchs and inhibiting competition, if they are allowed to continue that and add Neo-Feudalism through political activist crony corporations the only possible outcomes will be absolute tyranny or armed revolt.

That's a lot of jargon; I'm not sure what, if anything, you actually said.

[Swordsmyth]

Not more, a single one that affects everybody instead of putting people into groups. I may disagree with a law; but I find it more important that all are treated equally under the law.


So, a law requiring PayPal (or, I suppose Facebook or similar abominations) to serve everyone...?
Anyone.

It wouldn't be the optimal solution but if the left had to deal with the consequences that they have been forcing on everyone else they might agree to get rid of the whole thing.

[Swordsmyth]

That's a lot of jargon; I'm not sure what, if anything, you actually said.
Convenient reading comprehension problems?

[r3volution 3.0]

Anyone.

It wouldn't be the optimal solution but if the left had to deal with the consequences that they have been forcing on everyone else they might agree to get rid of the whole thing.

So, to be clear, you want to extend the 1964 Civil Rights Act (an immense injustice) to the internet...

...so that the state can force online private enterprises to serve everyone?



Convenient reading comprehension problems?

Inconvenient writing problems, it would seem...

[specsaregood]

Convenient reading comprehension problems?

Some would rather die of starvation because they were served only oatmeal and wanted a steak.

[Swordsmyth]

So, to be clear, you want to extend the 1964 Civil Rights Act (an immense injustice) to the internet...

...so that the state can force online private enterprises to serve everyone?
I'm not necessarily endorsing that, I was explaining specs' position.

But we must do something, the current situation is a guaranteed path to tyranny and communism, the left gets to break all the rules that they force on everyone else while the government subsidizes them and inhibits their competition.

If the right finally grows enough of a spine to demand equal protection under the law it might be possible to get that done and then we would have a fighting chance to rectify all of the causes of current conditions, meanwhile I don't see much chance of repealing the Civil Rights Act or ending the government's subsidization of collaborating corporations and stifling their competition.

[Swordsmyth]

Some would rather die of starvation because they were served only oatmeal and wanted a steak.
And some want the left to impose Neo-Feudalism on us either because they are closet leftists or because they vainly think that they and their ilk can seize the reins of power afterwards.

[r3volution 3.0]

Some would rather die of starvation because they were served only oatmeal and wanted a steak.

LOL, you people simply want the state to prohibit PayPal et al from discriminating against your political friends.

There is no difference, in this respect, between you all and the Trigglypuff crowd: "hate speech!?!?" derp derp derp.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm not necessarily endorsing that, I was explaining specs' position.

But we must do something, the current situation is a guaranteed path to tyranny and communism, the left gets to break all the rules that they force on everyone else while the government subsidizes them and inhibits their competition.

If the right finally grows enough of a spine to demand equal protection under the law it might be possible to get that done and then we would have a fighting chance to rectify all of the causes of current conditions, meanwhile I don't see much chance of repealing the Civil Rights Act or ending the government's subsidization of collaborating corporations and stifling their competition.

And what would you like the state to do to restrict private property rights?

[Swordsmyth]

And what would you like the state to do to restrict private property rights?
I would like to repeal the Civil Rights Act and end government subsidization and regulation that enables the problem, do you think we can do that right now with the left getting all of the benefits and none of the drawbacks of the current state of things?

[specsaregood]

I would like to repeal the Civil Rights Act and end government subsidization and regulation that enables the problem, do you think we can do that right now with the left getting all of the benefits and none of the drawbacks of the current state of things?

He likes the status quo, it lets him bitch and moan and achieve nothing.

[r3volution 3.0]

I would like to repeal the Civil Rights Act and end government subsidization and regulation that enables the problem, do you think we can do that right now with the left getting all of the benefits and none of the drawbacks of the current state of things?

The CRA and related laws have nothing to do with the "problem" of PayPal et al discriminating against neo-NAZI groups.

That is simply a function of the (ever-diminishing) rights of property: e.g. basic principles of contract.

Eliminating the CRA et al, though it ought to be done for other reasons, won't solve your "problem."

So what do you propose? What additional violations of property rights do you endorse?

There must be something; otherwise, you'd be in agreement with me.

[Swordsmyth]

The CRA and related laws have nothing to do with the "problem" of PayPal et al discriminating against neo-NAZI groups.

That is simply a function of the (ever-diminishing) rights of property: e.g. basic principles of contract.

Eliminating the CRA et al, though it ought to be done for other reasons, won't solve your "problem."

So what do you propose? What additional violations of property rights do you endorse?
The CRA allows the left to force the right to serve its base by creaming "racism" etc. while the left is allowed to deny service to the right because it is presumed that the right's base can't be discriminated against.

I've said what I propose before, lawsuits for breach of contract and false advertising, I would also like to see competition arise to solve the problem but the system is rigged against that, I would like to see the CRA repealed and an end to government subsidies and regulation that gives the left unfair advantages.

But if that doesn't work then making the left play by the same rules as everyone else may be the only option, at least then they might agree to remove the mandates from everyone and they wouldn't get to control who gets to speak and be heard or who gets to buy and sell in the meantime.

[r3volution 3.0]

I propose...lawsuits for breach of contract and false advertising

...which would justly fail, since there's been no such thing.


I would also like to see competition arise to solve the problem but the system is rigged against that, I would like to see the CRA repealed and an end to government subsidies and regulation that gives the left unfair advantages.

But if that doesn't work then making the left play by the same rules as everyone else may be the only option, at least then they might agree to remove the mandates from everyone and they wouldn't get to control who gets to speak and be heard or who gets to buy and sell in the meantime.

...a new and exciting anti-discrimination law, meant to violate the property rights of internet businesses which offend Trump people/alt-right/etc.


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FrayedGivingHarpyeagle-size_restricted.gif


O well

[Swordsmyth]

...which would justly fail, since there's been no such thing.



...a new and exciting anti-discrimination law, meant to violate the property rights of internet businesses which offend Trump people/alt-right/etc.


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FrayedGivingHarpyeagle-size_restricted.gif


O well

The alternative to the options I laid out is to see the left enthroned as a new aristocracy, not the kind of unicorn riding, libertarianism loving aristocracy that you dream about but a micromanaging, rabble bribing, socialism loving aristocracy that isn't ruled by a single king who according to you would have incentives to move towards the free market but is instead divided into permanently squabbling tribes that struggle to control an ever more powerful government to profit by stealing from us and eachother.
In short it is the negative image of your utopia and ought to frighten you to death, making everyone play by the same rules until we can repeal the rules entirely should be seen as near heaven by comparison.

[enhanced_deficit]

Two and two don't add up here.
Such Free Speech restrictions/bans of conservatives were supposed to decrease compared to Obama era but in fact such restrictions/bans are sharply increasing under MAGA regime. What explains that?

That said, I'm still not convinced that Breitbart extremist conservatives like Kassam and Coulter had convincing proof when they made following shocking claims:

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/294/982/125.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

Two and two don't add up here.
Such Free Speech restrictions/bans of conservatives were supposed to decrease compared to Obama era but in fact such restrictions/bans are sharply increasing under MAGA regime. What explains that?

That said, I'm still not convinced that Breitbart extremist conservatives like Kassam and Coulter had convincing proof when they made following shocking claims:

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/294/982/125.jpg

The Trump administration isn't doing this, "private" corporations are.

[enhanced_deficit]

The Trump administration isn't doing this, "private" corporations are.

Do you really believe that?
Why do you think Trump's twitter account is still active (even after he bombed Syria) but Alex Jones has been banned everywhere following his anti-Syria-bombing/anti-Trump rant (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?521316-So-Alex-Jones-FINALLY-has-enough-of-Trump-quot-He-just-crapped-all-over-us!-quot&)?

PayPal billionaire Peter Thiel 'becoming key Donald Trump adviser'
PayPal founder's employees reportedly refer to him as 'the shadow president'
Sunday 26 February 2017https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5989f2441400002000ecfc18.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_nou pscale

[Swordsmyth]

The alternative to the options I laid out is to see the left enthroned as a new aristocracy, not the kind of unicorn riding, libertarianism loving aristocracy that you dream about but a micromanaging, rabble bribing, socialism loving aristocracy that isn't ruled by a single king who according to you would have incentives to move towards the free market but is instead divided into permanently squabbling tribes that struggle to control an ever more powerful government to profit by stealing from us and eachother.
In short it is the negative image of your utopia and ought to frighten you to death, making everyone play by the same rules until we can repeal the rules entirely should be seen as near heaven by comparison.
There are actually 2 other alternatives.

1 an armed revolution that includes an element of redistribution of property to rectify the stolen wealth that has enabled such domination of the government and marketplace.

Very dangerous and to be avoided while there are ANY other options


2 the public option, create a money storage/transfer system run by the Post Office or the Treasury Department that is required to serve everyone.

This would leave the "private" corporations to do as they pleased while preventing the left from creating a Neo-Feudal mark of the beast system where anyone they don't like is unpersoned BUT it is expanding the role of government.


Just whistling in the wind while those who rule us enact tyranny through "private" government subsidized corporations that are protected from competition by government WILL NOT WORK NOR IS IT LIBERTARIAN, and calling for libertarian solutions while we are a tiny minority IS WHISTLING IN THE WIND.

[Swordsmyth]

Do you really believe that?
Why do you think Trump's twitter account is still active (even after he bombed Syria) but Alex Jones has been banned everywhere following his anti-Syria-bombing/anti-Trump rant?

PayPal billionaire Peter Thiel 'becoming key Donald Trump adviser'
PayPal founder's employees reportedly refer to him as 'the shadow president'
Sunday 26 February 2017https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5989f2441400002000ecfc18.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_nou pscale

Do they agree on everything?
Do they plan everything together?
Is Ron Paul guilty by association with Thiel as well?

[William Tell]

Do you own a home?

Suppose that I show up one day and insist to be let inside in the name of some nonsensical political horse$#@!.

A reasonable response on your part would be to shoot me.

Agree? Wow, that's even more severe than building a wall!

[Dangergirl]

That actually is exactly how a FREE market works. In your example, you don't have a right to the frosting company's product. They don't have to sell it to you or price it as you decide unless they have entered into a binding contract with you. They can have any reason they wish, or none at all. Just because you don't like it does not entitle you to frosting, or PayPal. It's not a human right. Unless there is a contract specifically requiring PayPal to give proper cause for termination, that is what they can do. Do business with someone else, make your own or encourage like minded people to create a business which matches your needs.

Yes there is a contract because you're in business with them yet you believe it's ok for them to break a contract because they like Chevy's and you drive a Ford. This to you is a "free market" decision. It is not. With what's happening now, you would kiss the guys ass and sell your Ford because he used the government, media, and regulations to monopolize the frosting market while labeling you a racist Ford driving Nazi that no one wants to be associated with.

Rev3, you have the needle and thread in hand but you miss the eye of the argument. You seem to think anything goes as long as the government doesn't do it. Only the government must follow Constitutional Law but private entities can do whatever they want to trample individual rights. Tyranny is ok as long as the ruling class is a privatized regime. The political monopolies have already been established, even subsidized by government. The market is rigged and eroding. What do we do now? We can talk to "them" and try to reason and sell the American ideas of freedom and maybe they will see where they went wrong and give up their evil ways. But things have gotten worse because they've become threatened. It's the ruling class, the globalists, the deep state whatever term you prefer to give "them", they're not letting go. When do you say enough is enough and take a stand?

[Suzanimal]

As much as it pains me to admit it, Rev3 is right.


The substantive issue is quite simple.

PayPal is a private enterprise which is (or ought to be) free to dispose of its property as it pleases: do business (or not) with whom it pleases.

And that is the end of the story, or ought to be.

But the class of persons who inhabit this forum these days don't know/care about such things.

He's also right here. I probably would shoot him. :)


Do you own a home?

Suppose that I show up one day and insist to be let inside in the name of some nonsensical political horseshit.

A reasonable response on your part would be to shoot me.

Agree?

[specsaregood]

As much as it pains me to admit it, Rev3 is right.


So you agree with him then that having a law that only protects special classes of people from such discrimination is better than having a law that protects everybody from the same discrimination?

Because we do NOT currently live in an environment where private enterprise is free to do as it pleases.

[Swordsmyth]

What is government? The people who rule you.
If the oligarchs have stolen enough wealth and surreptitious control of government to own everything and suppress competition through "private" government subsidized corporations and then begin to rule us using those corporations do they not become the government and subject to the restrictions on government?

[r3volution 3.0]

The alternative to the options I laid out is...a micromanaging, rabble bribing, socialism loving aristocracy...divided into permanently squabbling tribes that struggle to control an ever more powerful government to profit by stealing from us and each other.

So, in other words, the current situation..

[Swordsmyth]

So, in other words, the current situation..
Much worse.

[Suzanimal]

So you agree with him then that having a law that only protects special classes of people from such discrimination is better than having a law that protects everybody from the same discrimination?

Because we do NOT currently live in an environment where private enterprise is free to do as it pleases.

How about neither? Outside of enforcing contracts, government should have no say in who does business with who.

Is there current legislation to make it law that no one can be discriminated against? I sure as hell hope not. I really don't think the solution is to triple down on fuckery.

I believe in property rights and I believe in freedom of association. It's as simple as that.

[Suzanimal]

How is this situation free market? It's being 100% manipulated, not by government but by corporate agenda. I don't see how this is free market.

Suppose you own a cake shop and you bake great cakes in a great profitable location, that line you quote insinuates you will be successful because of your own destiny. But suppose your frosting supplier decides they don't want to sell to you anymore because you drive a Ford and their owner likes Chevy's. How can you still be successful with no frosting? Your argument in this thread is that it's ok even though Ford and Chevy have nothing to do with the supply chain or services agreed between your cake company and the frosting supplier. That is discrimination.

This is the case with Paypal and Bitchute. Bitchute did not ask for special treatment like non-gender binary financial services from Paypal, they took the services that Paypal offered to everyone. Paypal in turn decided to deny them for no apparent reason and that to you is free market?

I don't get the reasoning here.

Yes, once upon a time a Christian baker refused to bake a gay wedding cake. He did not refuse to sell a gay couple a cake. They were free to take what he offered, or not. That is free market.

Yes. That is exactly what a free market is.


In a free society, business owners, like homeowners, would have the right to run their businesses as they choose, including the right to refuse service. And that’s not all. In a free society, business owners would have the right to discriminate in their place of business on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, age, gender, height, weight, disability, attire, familial status, marital status, socioeconomic status, political preference, religious piety, national origin, appearance, odor, sexual orientation, or anything else, whether logical or illogical, reasonable or unreasonable, rational or irrational. It couldn’t be any other way and really be a free society.

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-right-to-refuse-service/

[Swordsmyth]

How about neither? Outside of enforcing contracts, government should have no say in who does business with who.

Is there current legislation to make it law that no one can be discriminated against? I sure as hell hope not. I really don't think the solution is to triple down on $#@!ery.

I believe in property rights and I believe in freedom of association. It's as simple as that.
How do we get where you want to go?

Will allowing the left full freedom while letting them restrict everyone else get us there?

[specsaregood]

How about neither? Outside of enforcing contracts, government should have no say in who does business with who.
Me neither, but do you really see that happening, ever?

In the current environment some groups are more equal than others. And I dislike that even more.

[Suzanimal]

Me neither, but do you really see that happening, ever?

In the current environment some groups are more equal than others. And I dislike that even more.

No. Not in my lifetime.

I dislike it, too. It sucks ass but I was just sitting here thinking about what it would mean for me if no one could be discriminated against. How many bathrooms would have to be installed in the bar to accommodate all the fucking genders out there? :confused: We would go broke.

Not being able to discriminate doesn't just effect (affect?:confused: I never get those right) Paypal - it would e(a)ffect every single business owner and you know it would be taken to the extreme. It would be so much worse than it is now.

[r3volution 3.0]

I really don't think the solution is to triple down on fuckery.

Well then you obviously hate freedom, America, and puppies.

[Suzanimal]

How do we get where you want to go?

I wish I had the answer.


Will allowing the left full freedom while letting them restrict everyone else get us there?


Of course not. I've never advocated for that but do you really think making everyone a protected class is the solution? You're just handing the douche bags more control than they already have.

[Swordsmyth]

Of course not. I've never advocated for that but do you really think making everyone a protected class is the solution? You're just handing the douche bags more control than they already have.
They have more power when they and their base are more equal than everyone else.

[Suzanimal]

They have more power when they and their base are more equal than everyone else.

Yes and with a handful of exceptions, they also control the government. Why on earth would you want to give them more power? If everyone's a protected class, where does it end?

I resent the fact that anyone thinks they have the right to tell me who I can and cannot do business with. SMDH

[Swordsmyth]

Yes and with a handful of exceptions, they also control the government. Why on earth would you want to give them more power? If everyone's a protected class, where does it end?

I resent the fact that anyone thinks they have the right to tell me who I can and cannot do business with. SMDH
They already tell us who we must do business with and then turn around and use their ability to not do business with anyone they please to gain even more power, they will use that power to continue to tell you who you must do business with.

The existence of a leftists aristocracy is just as bad as the government telling you who to do business with.

[Suzanimal]

They already tell us who we must do business with and then turn around and use their ability to not do business with anyone they please to gain even more power, they will use that power to continue to tell you who you must do business with.

The existence of a leftists aristocracy is just as bad as the government telling you who to do business with.

Yes that's the current situation and you don't see how making EVERYONE a protected class would kill what little control business owners are clinging to?

The leftists would have a field day and you'd just hand them that power. SMDH

[Swordsmyth]

Yes that's the current situation and you don't see how making EVERYONE a protected class would kill what little control business owners are clinging to?

The leftists would have a field day and you'd just hand them that power. SMDH
They are having a field day taking control of society by picking and choosing protected classes to suit themselves, maybe we could get the whole thing removed if everyone had to play by the same rules.

It's like the progressive income tax, those at the bottom get refundable tax credits and those at the top get loopholes, those in the middle will never be able to get rid of it as long as things remain that way.

If things remain the way they are the left will gain absolute control over society.

[Suzanimal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPsykNjUs-Q

[TheCount]

Yes that's the current situation and you don't see how making EVERYONE a protected class would kill what little control business owners are clinging to?

The leftists would have a field day and you'd just hand them that power. SMDH

The answer to too much state is even more state. When has that ever failed before?

[Swordsmyth]

Suzanimal we both agree on the end goal but how are we to get there if the left takes over completely and imposes Neo-Feudalism with communist characteristics?

[Swordsmyth]

The answer to too much state is even more state. When has that ever failed before?
It's not more state, the state has already taken the power to tell us who we may do business with, it's equal protection under the law.

[CCTelander]

Yes that's the current situation and you don't see how making EVERYONE a protected class would kill what little control business owners are clinging to?

The leftists would have a field day and you'd just hand them that power. SMDH


Don't you see? We have to make the market less free so we can make it more free. It's so obvious. Logic in the age of Trump. Embrace it. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

[Suzanimal]

They are having a field day taking control of society by picking and choosing protected classes to suit themselves, maybe we could get the whole thing removed if everyone had to play by the same rules.

It's like the progressive income tax, those at the bottom get refundable tax credits and those at the top get loopholes, those in the middle will never be able to get rid of it as long as things remain that way.

If things remain the way they are the left will gain absolute control over society.

I get what you're saying but I disagree that making everyone a protected class will make things better. As a matter of fact, I suspect the opposite to be true.

Do you believe in property rights?

[Suzanimal]

Suzanimal we both agree on the end goal but how are we to get there if the left takes over completely and imposes Neo-Feudalism with communist characteristics?

You seem to want to hand it to (unintentionally) want to hand it to them on a silver platter.

[CCTelander]

I get what you're saying but I disagree that making everyone a protected class will make things better. As a matter of fact, I suspect the opposite to be true.

Do you believe in property rights?


But, but, but property rights are much too important to leave them in the hands of mete business people, and the market is impotent to correct any of these issues because ... "leftists."

[Swordsmyth]

I get what you're saying but I disagree that making everyone a protected class will make things better. As a matter of fact, I suspect the opposite to be true.
I would prefer to simply make the government stop telling people who they can do business with and stop subsidizing connected corporations and stop using regulations to stifle competition but I think we will be a communist country before that ever happens.

Cutting off circulation to your leg with a tourniquet is bad UNLESS you are bleeding to death with a severed artery.

Things are already getting worse because the left has violated the status quo where corporations were politically neutral, I've said what I propose before, lawsuits for breach of contract and false advertising, I would also like to see competition arise to solve the problem but the system is rigged against that, I would like to see the CRA repealed and an end to government subsidies and regulation that gives the left unfair advantages.

But if that doesn't work then making the left play by the same rules as everyone else may be the only option, at least then they might agree to remove the mandates from everyone and they wouldn't get to control who gets to speak and be heard or who gets to buy and sell in the meantime.


Do you believe in property rights?
Absolutely, the left doesn't and they will use their Neo-Feudal government by crony corporation to end them completely for everyone else.

[Swordsmyth]

You seem to want to hand it to (unintentionally) want to hand it to them on a silver platter.
They already have it within their grasp, we might be able to reverse things if they don't get to fight with two hands while we fight with one tied behind our backs.

[Swordsmyth]

But, but, but property rights are much too important to leave them in the hands of mete business people, and the market is impotent to correct any of these issues because ... "leftists."
How are crony corporations that are subsidized and shielded from competition by the government distinguishable from government?

[Suzanimal]

I would prefer to simply make the government stop telling people who they can do business with and stop subsidizing connected corporations and stop using regulations to stifle competition but I think we will be a communist country before that ever happens.

Cutting off circulation to your leg with a tourniquet is bad UNLESS you are bleeding to death with a severed artery.

Things are already getting worse because the left has violated the status quo where corporations were politically neutral, I've said what I propose before, lawsuits for breach of contract and false advertising, I would also like to see competition arise to solve the problem but the system is rigged against that, I would like to see the CRA repealed and an end to government subsidies and regulation that gives the left unfair advantages.

But if that doesn't work then making the left play by the same rules as everyone else may be the only option, at least then they might agree to remove the mandates from everyone and they wouldn't get to control who gets to speak and be heard or who gets to buy and sell in the meantime.


Absolutely, the left doesn't and they will use their Neo-Feudal government by crony corporation to end them completely for everyone else.

Who do you think is going to write those rules?

[Swordsmyth]

Who do you think is going to write those rules?
I know, I know, but they are already doing it while allowed to be biased in ways the government is not allowed to be.

Why do you think they chose the Neo-Feudal route instead of just passing more laws and regulations?
When the official government is involved there is recourse in the courts and the ballot box so they must try to at least look "fair" but if they get to use the freedoms they deny us in the "private" sector while using government to stop the private sector mechanisms that are supposed to punish their behavior like loss of income and market share to competition then they get to have their cake and eat it too.

[Suzanimal]

I know, I know, but they are already doing it while allowed to be biased in ways the government is not allowed to be.

Why do you think they chose the Neo-Feudal route instead of just passing more laws and regulations?
When the official government is involved there is recourse in the courts and the ballot box so they must try to at least look "fair" but if they get to use the freedoms they deny us in the "private" sector while using government to stop the private sector mechanisms that are supposed to punish their behavior like loss of income and market share to competition then they get to have their cake and eat it too.

And you think they're going to write laws to limit themselves?

[Swordsmyth]

And you think they're going to write laws to limit themselves?
I don't expect anything good to happen unless there is a historic turning point of one kind or another but I see equality under the current bad laws as more achievable than any of the better solutions.

[Occam's Banana]

So you agree with him then that having a law that only protects special classes of people from such discrimination is better than having a law that protects everybody from the same discrimination?

Because we do NOT currently live in an environment where private enterprise is free to do as it pleases.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I sympathize strongly with what you and others are getting at, but just as "we do NOT currently live in an environment where private enterprise is free to do as it pleases", we also quite clearly do NOT currently live in an environment where "a law that protects everybody from the same discrimination" will amount to anything but rainbow-scented unicorn farts.

Given the current environment, what reasons are there to anticipate that such a law, as noble and fine-sounding as it may be in the abstract, will in the concrete not be selectively applied to the advantage of the powerful and politically connected, and will not be used routinely against the critics and enemies of the establishment? As far as I can see, there is none. It would just be one more tool in the tyrants' toolbox.

File under "There is a problem. A law is passed to fix the problem. Now there are two problems ..."

[Swordsmyth]

And you think they're going to write laws to limit themselves?


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I sympathize strongly with what you and others are getting at, but just as "we do NOT currently live in an environment where private enterprise is free to do as it pleases", we also quite clearly do NOT currently live in an environment where "a law that protects everybody from the same discrimination" will amount to anything but rainbow-scented unicorn farts.

Given the current environment, what reasons are there to anticipate that such a law, as noble and fine-sounding as it may be in the abstract, will in the concrete not be selectively applied to the advantage of the powerful and politically connected, and will not be used routinely against the critics and enemies of the establishment? As far as I can see, there is none. It would just be one more tool in the tyrants' toolbox.

File under "There is a problem. A law is passed to fix the problem. Now there are two problems ..."
If we discount the possibility of libertarian solutions at this point (and I think we can agree they won't happen), the possibility of lawsuits for breach of contract/false advertising and the workability of passing a law to make them play fair then unless we are willing to just accept our new leftist aristocracy we only have 2 other options:

1 an armed revolution that includes an element of redistribution of property to rectify the stolen wealth that has enabled such domination of the government and marketplace.

Very dangerous and to be avoided while there are ANY other options


2 the public option, create a money storage/transfer system run by the Post Office or the Treasury Department that is required to serve everyone.

This would leave the "private" corporations to do as they pleased while preventing the left from creating a Neo-Feudal mark of the beast system where anyone they don't like is unpersoned BUT it is expanding the role of government.


What think ye of them?
Do we have any other options?

[Suzanimal]

I don't expect anything good to happen unless there is a historic turning point of one kind or another but I see equality under the current bad laws as more achievable than any of the better solutions.

Do you realize what compliance costs will be if everyone is a protected class? I imagine the only businesses that could shoulder them would be the big guys. What you're proposing would kill small business owners.

You're willing to make bad laws worse?:confused:

[Swordsmyth]

Do you realize what compliance costs will be if everyone is a protected class? I imagine the only businesses that could shoulder them would be the big guys. What you're proposing would kill small business owners.

You're willing to make bad laws worse?:confused:
I am betwixt and between, we are in a situation where none of the right options are available and to use the metaphor I used above we must decide whether to cut off circulation to one of our legs or not, I posted the only other options I can think of just before you posted this, I would be interested to know what you think of them.

What happens when your bank refuses to continue serving your business because you are registered as a republican or libertarian or because you post here?
Can small businesses survive that?

[Suzanimal]

I am betwixt and between, we are in a situation where none of the right options are available and to use the metaphor I used above we must decide whether to cut off circulation to one of our legs or not, I posted the only other options I can think of just before you posted this, I would be interested to know what you think of them.

What happens when your bank refuses to continue serving your business because you are registered as a republican or libertarian or because you post here?
Can small businesses survive that?

Yes. It wouldn't be easy but marijuana retailers seem to be doing okay.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes. It wouldn't be easy but marijuana retailers seem to be doing okay.
Are they surviving by using personal bank accounts?
What if your bank won't let you have one of those either?
What do you think of option two as a least of all evils tourniquet?

2 the public option, create a money storage/transfer system run by the Post Office or the Treasury Department that is required to serve everyone.

This would leave the "private" corporations to do as they pleased while preventing the left from creating a Neo-Feudal mark of the beast system where anyone they don't like is unpersoned BUT it is expanding the role of government.

[dannno]

I dunno, it seems like if the government heavily regulates money, demands you pay taxes in dollars and has heavy handed control over the whole banking and monetary industry, allowing that industry to discriminate against political parties seems a bit scary.

I don't know what the answer is within our monetary paradigm. Obviously we would like to extricate ourselves from the current monetary paradigm, but when your political enemies use the force of government to create an economic system you can't participate in, that they have power over, that is kind of a bad spot to be in. Womp womp.

[Swordsmyth]

I dunno, it seems like if the government heavily regulates money, demands you pay taxes in dollars and has heavy handed control over the whole banking and monetary industry, allowing that industry to discriminate against political parties seems a bit scary.

I don't know what the answer is within our monetary paradigm. Obviously we would like to extricate ourselves from the current monetary paradigm, but when your political enemies use the force of government to create an economic system you can't participate in, that they have power over, that is kind of a bad spot to be in. Womp womp.
What do you think of option 2?

2 the public option, create a money storage/transfer system run by the Post Office or the Treasury Department that is required to serve everyone.

This would leave the "private" corporations to do as they pleased while preventing the left from creating a Neo-Feudal mark of the beast system where anyone they don't like is unpersoned BUT it is expanding the role of government.

[Suzanimal]

Are they surviving by using personal bank accounts?
What if your bank won't let you have one of those either?
What do you think of option two as a least of all evils tourniquet?

2 the public option, create a money storage/transfer system run by the Post Office or the Treasury Department that is required to serve everyone.

This would leave the "private" corporations to do as they pleased while preventing the left from creating a Neo-Feudal mark of the beast system where anyone they don't like is unpersoned BUT it is expanding the role of government.

I'm not sure if they're running any of it through a bank. I wouldn't. It's drug money and could be seized.

If I could afford a vault...:cool:
https://media.giphy.com/media/n59dQcO9yaaaY/giphy.gif

I'd most likely pay in cash and put some on those bullshit visas at the CVS.

I have a big problem with required to serve.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm not sure if they're running any of it through a bank. I wouldn't. It's drug money and could be seized.

If I could afford a vault...:cool:
https://media.giphy.com/media/n59dQcO9yaaaY/giphy.gif

I'd most likely pay in cash and put some on those bull$#@! visas at the CVS.

I have a big problem with required to serve.
I'm not sure many businesses could survive without a bank account/check cashing etc., some could but many couldn't.

I would REALLY like somebody's opinion on option 2.:pray:

[Suzanimal]

I'm not sure many businesses could survive without a bank account/check cashing etc., some could but many couldn't.

I would REALLY like somebody's opinion on option 2.:pray:

I gave you my opinion.

My copy-n-paste is sketchy so I'll say it again.

You lost me at required.

And you trust the Post Office and the Treasury to safeguard and be responsible with that money?

https://66.media.tumblr.com/8fcb946ff21da421ae2f1a76490097eb/tumblr_ms157c6ugT1qc7cmzo3_400.gif

[Origanalist]

I'm not sure many businesses could survive without a bank account/check cashing etc., some could but many couldn't.

I would REALLY like somebody's opinion on option 2.:pray:

I think that's moving in entirely the wrong direction and it would only be a matter of time until it was mandatory.

[Swordsmyth]

I gave you my opinion.

My copy-n-paste is sketchy so I'll say it again.

You lost me at required.
I didn't understand that you meant that as a response to option 2, I thought you were referring to your business being required to serve any customer.
The government should be required to serve all law abiding citizens.


And you trust the Post Office and the Treasury to safeguard and be responsible with that money?

https://66.media.tumblr.com/8fcb946ff21da421ae2f1a76490097eb/tumblr_ms157c6ugT1qc7cmzo3_400.gif
The government would be required to fork over the money even if they had to print more and at least they wouldn't be able to unperson conservatives.
They already handle uncountable sums so a money storage and transfer service wouldn't really be any different.

[Swordsmyth]

I think that's moving in entirely the wrong direction and it would only be a matter of time until it was mandatory.
I understand but the current system is already flirting with mark of the beast territory without an option that is required to serve you without bias and could just as easily become mandatory.

[Origanalist]

I didn't understand that you meant that as a response to option 2, I thought you were referring to your business being required to serve any customer.
The government should be required to serve all law abiding citizens.


The government would be required to fork over the money even if they had to print more and at least they wouldn't be able to unperson conservatives.
They already handle uncountable sums so a money storage and transfer service wouldn't really be any different.

In case you haven't noticed, the government does pretty much whatever it wants to. Sometimes it takes a little longer for certain things, sometimes not.

[Suzanimal]

I didn't understand that you meant that as a response to option 2, I thought you were referring to your business being required to serve any customer.
The government should be required to serve all law abiding citizens.


The government would be required to fork over the money even if they had to print more and at least they wouldn't be able to unperson conservatives.
They already handle uncountable sums so a money storage and transfer service wouldn't really be any different.

My highlighter is screwed up so I can't really break up your post.

1. The government does serves all citizens - good and hard. No more service for me thanks.

2. I realize that. Hows it working out for us?

[Swordsmyth]

In case you haven't noticed, the government does pretty much whatever it wants to. Sometimes it takes a little longer for certain things, sometimes not.
But it is somewhat restrained by the vestiges of our Constitution, the Neo-Feudal crony corporations aren't.

[CCTelander]

I think that's moving in entirely the wrong direction and it would only be a matter of time until it was mandatory.


The only thing his "option 2" lacks to be in total compliance with the fifth plank from the Communist Manifesto is an exclusive monopoly which, as you note, wouldn't be long in coming.

So basically he's advocating communism to prevent communism.

Welcome to Bizzarro RPFs.

[Swordsmyth]

My highlighter is screwed up so I can't really break up your post.

1. The government does serves all citizens - good and hard. No more service for me thanks.
The Neo-Feudal crony corporations will be happy to take over and they will make government look like a libertarian's utopia.



2. I realize that. Hows it working out for us?
Better than Corporate Feudalism will.

[Swordsmyth]

The only thing his "option 2" lacks to be in total compliance with the fifth plank from the Communist Manifesto is an exclusive monopoly which, as you note, wouldn't be long in coming.

So basically he's advocating communism to prevent communism.

Welcome to Bizzarro RPFs.
I specifically made it not a monopoly to avoid the communism, the Neo-Feudal corporations will gladly use government to create a leftist monopoly and corporate communism.

What option do you suggest to solve the problem? (That actually has a chance of happening)

[Origanalist]

But it is somewhat restrained by the vestiges of our Constitution, the Neo-Feudal crony corporations aren't.

I understand what you're saying, but again it's moving in the wrong direction. The only cure is for people to avail themselves of the free market in whatever form necessary to make these pricks irrelevant. Unfortunately to many "muricans are too fat, lazy and stupid to care. I just don't see option 2 ending well at all, it never does.

[Swordsmyth]

I understand what you're saying, but again it's moving in the wrong direction. The only cure is for people to avail themselves of the free market in whatever form necessary to make these pricks irrelevant. Unfortunately to many "muricans are too fat, lazy and stupid to care. I just don't see option 2 ending well at all, it never does.
We are already speeding in the wrong direction, do you think that option 2 will end worse than the Neo-Feudalism will?
Might it buy us enough time to actually start moving things in the right direction?

[dannno]

I don't want to create another government agency, I would prefer the private market is involved as much as possible..

I would consider something along the lines of, if you provide money or banking services denominated in dollars - since we are required to use dollars - the CRA could be invoked not to discriminate based on political beliefs (as well as race, religion, etc..)

If you bake wedding cakes, you could still discriminate based on political beliefs. This is because the government doesn't require people who get married to have cakes, and anybody has the right to bake a cake. So if TheCount owned a bakery, they could deny his services to Trump supporters to their heart's content.

Not a fan of the private business part of the CRA, but even Ron and Rand Paul agree with the parts of the act that require government to not discriminate. Is that part bad? I don't think the government should discriminate. So should banking and money services that denominate in dollars be under the same umbrella? Can we provide protection to political beliefs under that umbrella? That might not be as horrible as TheCount and some others might make it out to be.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't want to create another government agency, I would prefer the private market is involved as much as possible..

I would consider something along the lines of, if you provide money or banking services denominated in dollars - since we are required to use dollars - the CRA could be invoked not to discriminate based on political beliefs (as well as race, religion, etc..)

If you bake wedding cakes, you could still discriminate based on political beliefs. This is because the government doesn't require people who get married to have cakes, and anybody has the right to bake a cake.

Not a fan of the private business part of the CRA, but even Ron and Rand Paul agree with the parts of the act that require government to not discriminate. Is that part bad? I don't think the government should discriminate. So should banking and money services that denominate in dollars be under the same umbrella? Can we provide protection to political beliefs under that umbrella? That might not be as horrible as TheCount and some others might make it out to be.
This sounds reasonable.

[Origanalist]

We are already speeding in the wrong direction, do you think that option 2 will end worse than the Neo-Feudalism will?
Might it buy us enough time to actually start moving things in the right direction?

Yes, because at some point idiot Americans can revolt against corporations. They may not but they could, try opting out in the open against government and your chances aren't very good. They like to make examples of such people.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, because at some point idiot Americans can revolt against corporations. They may not but they could, try opting out in the open against government and your chances aren't very good. They like to make examples of such people.
You may be right, in which case I must agree with Dannno that since the government restricts competition in banking and currency to the benefit of banks they should be required to provide basic services to any law abiding customers.

[Suzanimal]

You may be right, in which case I must agree with Dannno that since the government restricts competition in banking and currency to the benefit of banks they should be required to provide basic services to any law abiding customers.

Law abiding? Welp, I'm out and they wouldn't even have to bother sifting through all my gibberish on the internet to refuse me service. As a matter of fact, two crimes I committed are on a bank camera. :tears:

[Origanalist]

You may be right, in which case I must agree with Dannno that since the government restricts competition in banking and currency to the benefit of banks they should be required to provide basic services to any law abiding customers.

That sounds nice I guess, but really, how hard is it for any gubment official to declare you're breaking the law? And how hard is it to overturn that? What do you do when they make advocating for less government a crime? I can see a day when this could happen if thing continue as they are.

[Origanalist]

Law abiding? Welp, I'm out and they wouldn't even have to bother sifting through all my gibberish on the internet to refuse me service. As a matter of fact, two crimes I committed are on a bank camera. :tears:

Were all criminals. I doubt there is a singe person in this country who doesn't commit some kind of crime at least once a week. Whether they know it or not.

[Swordsmyth]

Law abiding? Welp, I'm out and they wouldn't even have to bother sifting through all my gibberish on the internet to refuse me service. As a matter of fact, two crimes I committed are on a bank camera. :tears:


That sounds nice I guess, but really, how hard is it for any gubment official to declare you're breaking the law? And how hard is it to overturn that? What do you do when they make advocating for less government a crime? I can see a day when this could happen if thing continue as they are.
Do you expect government to make banks serve money launderers etc.?

I said "law abiding" because there will be some kind of limits like that in any law passed, to be more precise I will reword it to say "any customer whose transactions are legal".

[Origanalist]

Do you expect government to make banks serve money launderers etc.?

I said "law abiding" because there will be some kind of limits like that in any law passed, to be more precise I will reword it to say "any customer whose transactions are legal".

I guess you and I are just coming at this from different angles..

https://pics.me.me/whoa-whoa-whoa-im-all-for-freedom-if-its-done-34295951.png

[Swordsmyth]

I guess you and I are just coming at this from different angles..

https://pics.me.me/whoa-whoa-whoa-im-all-for-freedom-if-its-done-34295951.png
No, I would open up banking and currency to competition and remove government from involvement in subsidizing and regulating it.

BUT I am talking about Dannno's suggestion of something that might actually pass that would minimize the problems with the current situation.

[Origanalist]

No, I would open up banking and currency to competition and remove government from involvement in subsidizing and regulating it.

BUT I am talking about Dannno's suggestion of something that might actually pass that would minimize the problems with the current situation.

What is the CRA?

[dannno]

As a matter of fact, two crimes I committed are on a bank camera. :tears:

Indecent exposure?

[Swordsmyth]

What is the CRA?

Civil Rights Act.

[dannno]

What is the CRA?

The Civil Rights Act.. part of which Ron and Rand agree with (government shouldn't discriminate), vs. private businesses shouldn't discriminate. The question is whether these money institutions that denominate in dollars are so connected to government due to monopoly restrictions, should these be considered under the government umbrella? Should the government discriminate against people based on their political beliefs?

The CRA was never something I would have thought needed to be expanded, but that goes for everything the government does.. but the way the left is waging the war it seems like it might be legitimately more fair.

I'm very weary of even thinking about putting social media in this category as well, but I think people should be talking more about how these institutions discriminate so we can judge them and hopefully find a broader consensus to ditch them for better ones.

[Suzanimal]

Do you expect government to make banks serve money launderers etc.?

I said "law abiding" because there will be some kind of limits like that in any law passed, to be more precise I will reword it to say "any customer whose transactions are legal".

I don't expect government to make banks serve anyone.

I hope you realize banks do serve money launderers. HSBC, for example.

One of my transactions wasn't legal but my son got his cash so I doubt he's gonna press charges.

[Swordsmyth]

The Civil Rights Act.. part of which Ron and Rand agree with (government shouldn't discriminate), vs. private businesses shouldn't discriminate. The question is whether these money institutions that denominate in dollars are so connected to government due to monopoly restrictions, should these be considered under the government umbrella? Should the government discriminate against people based on their political beliefs?
They merged with government long ago.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't expect government to make banks serve anyone.

I hope you realize banks do serve money launderers. HSBC, for example.

One of my transactions wasn't legal but my son got his cash so I doubt he's gonna press charges.
Well if they weren't protected from competition by the government and subsidized by the government and if we weren't forced to use dollars by the government I would agree but since none of that is true then they should be forced to serve anyone.

Of course they do serve connected money launderers but government isn't going to write that into the law and they would have to know and prove that your transaction was illegal in order to refuse it.

[Origanalist]

The Civil Rights Act.. part of which Ron and Rand agree with (government shouldn't discriminate), vs. private businesses shouldn't discriminate. The question is whether these money institutions that denominate in dollars are so connected to government due to monopoly restrictions, should these be considered under the government umbrella? Should the government discriminate against people based on their political beliefs?

I think they already do. Despite Trump now being president. I personally think it's doomed to failure by a impartial analysis eventually as all such endeavors are that are government run, but I have no dog in this hunt. I think we're screwed either way. AF is right, freedom is NOT popular.

[Suzanimal]

Indecent exposure?

I was perfectly decent when I forged that check and attempted to make a withdrawal on my son's account. The teller wouldn't let me have his cash so I stole some out of Mr A super secret hidey hole (he thinks it's a secret, anyway) and then I went in my son's computer and logged onto his bank account and moved the money to my account. Then I took a walk with an open container and took a hit off a fatty in the neighbor's party garage.

[dannno]

I was perfectly decent when I forged that check and attempted to make a withdrawal on my son's account. The teller wouldn't let me have his cash so I stole some out of Mr A super secret hidey hole (he thinks it's a secret, anyway) and then I went in my son's computer and logged onto his bank account and moved the money to my account. Then I took a walk with an open container and took a hit off a fatty in the neighbor's party garage.

Oh shit, it's Upgrayedd..

[Wooden Indian]

A certain powerful leftist purchased a 150 million of PayPal stock then sent his mildly retarded liberal activist group to feign outrage over "Right Wing Extremists"...

Pure coincidence that PayPal folded so easily... had nothing to do with the wishes of this power-mad leftist devil, nor his massive investments across Silicon Valley.

This is business as usual of course here in "The United States of Rockefeller", but we filthy commoners could at least pretend to struggle as the noose tightens.