I don't want to defend NYT but it looks like the banking one is ironic clickbait on an article in favor of new regulations, but I didn't read it to confirm. The headline is technically correct. You don't have a right to a bank account. That's why some kind of legal protection is needed.
Personally I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt. To me most journos are cut from the same cloth, clickbait outrage merchants. They say you don't have a right to a bank account, and I say a lot of others don't deserve the right to a lot of services if they are traitors, criminals etc.
How about the alternative that we shouldn't have the right to a bank account, because the currency should be strong enough so that if I am my own bank, I'll gain purchasing power from not spending the money.
You know, like how every single money worked previously to a Keynsian Fiat Monetary system of perpetual inflation? Saving money caused purchasing power to go up as a deflationary force because money was effected by supply & demand, and supply went down as demand stayed the same or increased.
We don't have the right to a bank account for the same reason we don't have a right to health insurance: our rights are natural rights granted to us by God, not by each person's corporate patrons. We 'have' to have health insurance because medicine must be provided by a corporate patron. We 'have' to have a bank account because our money must be held by our corporate patron.
We should burn down the system of corporate patronage with a cleansing fire.
While everything you said it true, that's a 90 part plan that'll upend multiple economies and take considerable effort and multiple complete failures before it comes to fruition.
While the "legal right to a bank account" is something that can be accomplished tomorrow with a pen and few repercussions.
I think we can do one first to sustain a lot of people from being destroyed in the meantime and then do away with it once its no longer needed.
I would prefer to mark it a bit differently rather than add to the philosophy of positive rights that the government can take away if you're a bad little boy.
Perhaps a law that makes the closure of bank accounts not legal for non-transaction related behaviors; or, at the very least, make banks required to disclose that they intend to engage in political discrimination as part of their terms and conditions before opening an account.
That way we create some procedural fairness without establishing it as a 'right' within the law.
Perhaps a law that makes the closure of bank accounts not legal for non-transaction related behaviors
I think the only reason they should be allowed any choice in the matter is conviction of major financial crimes, as in the only thing remotely relevant to them.
Banks are riddled with federal and legal protections from basically everything, they should not get to pretend to be a "business" with any right to choice or discriminatory actions. They have an absurd amount of legal rights granted to them.
So if they wish to act like discriminatory agents that have all the rights granted to private businesses, then they must forfeit all the protections the federal government grants them that allows no competition to exist, no recourse from any wrong customers, and full bailouts if they fuck up.
I don't want to defend NYT but it looks like the banking one is ironic clickbait on an article in favor of new regulations, but I didn't read it to confirm. The headline is technically correct. You don't have a right to a bank account. That's why some kind of legal protection is needed.
Personally I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt. To me most journos are cut from the same cloth, clickbait outrage merchants. They say you don't have a right to a bank account, and I say a lot of others don't deserve the right to a lot of services if they are traitors, criminals etc.
How about the alternative that we shouldn't have the right to a bank account, because the currency should be strong enough so that if I am my own bank, I'll gain purchasing power from not spending the money.
You know, like how every single money worked previously to a Keynsian Fiat Monetary system of perpetual inflation? Saving money caused purchasing power to go up as a deflationary force because money was effected by supply & demand, and supply went down as demand stayed the same or increased.
We don't have the right to a bank account for the same reason we don't have a right to health insurance: our rights are natural rights granted to us by God, not by each person's corporate patrons. We 'have' to have health insurance because medicine must be provided by a corporate patron. We 'have' to have a bank account because our money must be held by our corporate patron.
We should burn down the system of corporate patronage with a cleansing fire.
While everything you said it true, that's a 90 part plan that'll upend multiple economies and take considerable effort and multiple complete failures before it comes to fruition.
While the "legal right to a bank account" is something that can be accomplished tomorrow with a pen and few repercussions.
I think we can do one first to sustain a lot of people from being destroyed in the meantime and then do away with it once its no longer needed.
I would prefer to mark it a bit differently rather than add to the philosophy of positive rights that the government can take away if you're a bad little boy.
Perhaps a law that makes the closure of bank accounts not legal for non-transaction related behaviors; or, at the very least, make banks required to disclose that they intend to engage in political discrimination as part of their terms and conditions before opening an account.
That way we create some procedural fairness without establishing it as a 'right' within the law.
I think the only reason they should be allowed any choice in the matter is conviction of major financial crimes, as in the only thing remotely relevant to them.
Banks are riddled with federal and legal protections from basically everything, they should not get to pretend to be a "business" with any right to choice or discriminatory actions. They have an absurd amount of legal rights granted to them.
So if they wish to act like discriminatory agents that have all the rights granted to private businesses, then they must forfeit all the protections the federal government grants them that allows no competition to exist, no recourse from any wrong customers, and full bailouts if they fuck up.