The end of PayPal (and our society)
Paypal just initialized their own demise. They are restricting what you can or cannot spend your money on. Not only will they determine what people can buy, they will now have the power to fine you $500 for something they don't like. Lets take a look at their new policy on adult related material.
Now, one must ask the question, why in the hell are they doing this? A spokesmen claims:
Now I think that any company can choose to deny service to anyone, a business does not have an obligation to serve me. I could go off on a medicine industry rant here on how we are destroying drug companies by people thinking they have an obligation to serve us, but I won't. What this little policy will do for PayPal is make them start looking out for competitors. As of now, PayPal is the method of online paying, but now PayPal has created a consumer who cannot use their business: the pornography consumer. Can anyone take a guess of how large of a market there is online for pornography? Could they have thought of a better decision to run themselves into the dirt? And for what? Well...
Being an anti-socialist libertarian, the statement "protecting our users" sends off so many flags in my head. Hell, just look at my Ayn Rand quote on the right. 'Protecting' people has always been the excuse to pass laws that restrict my rights and I for one, will not stand for having my rights taken from me.
Why are people trying to ban guns? To protect people from gun violence. Why is smoking illegal indoors everywhere in California? To protect people from the dangers of smoking. Why is marijuana illegal? To protect people from an evil drug. Why was alcohol made illegal? To protect people from the abuse of alcohol. Why was the Patriot Act written? To protect people from terrorism. Why is anti-gay marriage legislation going through in many places? To protect the family. Why are political correctness laws created? To protect people from hate speech. Why does social security exist? To protect people when they retire.
Why the hell do we as a people allow this bullshit? Damn it, I am capable of taking care of myself! I am capable of thinking and making decisions for myself! I am not going to throw away my rights so that the government can claim that I am 'protected.'
Vote libertarian for fuck's sake.
PayPal may not be used to send or receive payments for any adult, sexually oriented, or obscene materials or services. This includes, but is not limited to:How's that for a subjective policy. Who determines what is or is not sexual activity. Who determines what is sexually arousing? Am I going to be fined $500 for buying a Strapping Young Lad cd with a song entitled Rape Song? Will I be fined for buying a Cannibal Corpse shirt with a naked woman on it because someone at PayPal thinks it suggests sexual activity? The whole thing is just ridiculous.
* Any material or services suggesting sexual activity
* Any material or services designed to sexually arouse the viewer or reader
* Non-adult services whose web site marketing can be reasonably misconstrued as allowing adult material or services to be purchased using PayPal (e.g., a web hosting service that markets its services by displaying sexually explicit graphics and the PayPal button on its home page)
Now, one must ask the question, why in the hell are they doing this? A spokesmen claims:
"There is a business risk associated with those categories, and we are moving to protecting our users," Pires said.If people are using PayPal to purchase pr0n without a contract, then they are irresponiible and deserve to be ripped off. I assume that the majority of the people who buy online are doing so through a contract. Auctions through eBay for example, are legally binding contracts. So there exists already means to protect a buyer. The ratings system on eBay also allows people to be wary of risky sellers.
Now I think that any company can choose to deny service to anyone, a business does not have an obligation to serve me. I could go off on a medicine industry rant here on how we are destroying drug companies by people thinking they have an obligation to serve us, but I won't. What this little policy will do for PayPal is make them start looking out for competitors. As of now, PayPal is the method of online paying, but now PayPal has created a consumer who cannot use their business: the pornography consumer. Can anyone take a guess of how large of a market there is online for pornography? Could they have thought of a better decision to run themselves into the dirt? And for what? Well...
Being an anti-socialist libertarian, the statement "protecting our users" sends off so many flags in my head. Hell, just look at my Ayn Rand quote on the right. 'Protecting' people has always been the excuse to pass laws that restrict my rights and I for one, will not stand for having my rights taken from me.
Why are people trying to ban guns? To protect people from gun violence. Why is smoking illegal indoors everywhere in California? To protect people from the dangers of smoking. Why is marijuana illegal? To protect people from an evil drug. Why was alcohol made illegal? To protect people from the abuse of alcohol. Why was the Patriot Act written? To protect people from terrorism. Why is anti-gay marriage legislation going through in many places? To protect the family. Why are political correctness laws created? To protect people from hate speech. Why does social security exist? To protect people when they retire.
Why the hell do we as a people allow this bullshit? Damn it, I am capable of taking care of myself! I am capable of thinking and making decisions for myself! I am not going to throw away my rights so that the government can claim that I am 'protected.'
Vote libertarian for fuck's sake.
posted by Brian at 5:43 PM
3 Comments:
Hi Host, it's Kevin Connor. The truth is that not everyone is as good as everyone else, because they don't start out with the same genes or receive the same nuturing care (food, or trust funds) when they are children, leading to drastic differences in ability among human beings. I know that you can "protect" yourself, but a lot of people cannot. Not everyone is capable of being a graduate student in physics, or playing guitar in a band-even if they really really want to and work really hard at it. And there are an incredible number of people who can't take care of themselves in even basic sorts of ways. So, we can either act to protect those who cannot protect themselves, or we can leave them to the wolves. Perhaps an argument could be made that we should leave them to the wolves, but there's a certain amount of moral and ethical evidence that says that we shouldn't leave them to the wolves, and maybe that's why the Libertarian party never does so well on Election Day.
Kevin! You probably won't ever come back to see this, but its good to hear from you!
I know that there are people who cannot take care of themselves, but one must ask the question who is best to take care of them? Private charity organizations or the government? As a libertarian, I of course, will argue that the government is the last group we want to have taking care of money for people.
The problem I have is people telling me I HAVE to pay to support these helpless people, and then my money ends up going to people who are not helpless. If I want to help people who cannot take care of themselves I will give money to an appropriate charity. But if I see that charity giving money to someone who is perfectly capable of taking care of themself, I will take my business to another charity.
And what moral or ethical evidence is there? Who determines what is properly moral or ethical? Anyone can determine what is moral or ethical in their own eyes, but I don't what anyone shoving their beliefs down my throat.
The bottom line is when the government starts thinking and making decisions for us, we become lazy and mindless. Millions of people gladly nod their heads in acceptance at what the government does for them without taking responsibility into their own hands.
libertarians do win offices on the local level. There are over 600 libertarians in local offices around the country. Libertarians will never become of wide acceptance because of our 2 party system. Unless something drastic is done to change the way we vote, Republicrats will do everything in their power to keep 3rd parties out of the system.
Host! I returneth. Unfortunately, absolute ethical relativism is impossible. You said that anyone can believe whatever they want, as long as those people don't shove it down your throat. Having things shoved down your throat is something that you believe is immoral or unethical. Well, what if the core of my belief system is to shove things down your throat? Then you would say that shoving things down your throat is immoral and/or unethical, and I would say that it was not. We have to appeal to some other means to decide who is right, because the ethically relativistic standard ("everyone can think what they want") doesn't give us an answer. If you look more broadly at the problem, we have no way now to say that anything at all is right or wrong. The system needs something more than "whatever you want as long as it doesn't bother me", because it isn't clear what it is that gives "you not being bothered" any power over "whatever I want."
The idea that private corporations and individuals are somehow more efficient and honest than the government ignores history. The Great Depression resulted in large part from private banks speculating on loans with great risks and great profit potential-- when a lot of these loanees didn't make their payments, the banks found themselves cash-poor, unable to pay their own debtors, which brought down the finances of their accountholders and stockholders. The system of federal checks and balances that arose during and after the New Deal smoothed out the rollercoaster, forcing banks to lend responsibly. A similar situation caused the recession of the late 80's with junk bonds and savings and loans, and similar government policies arose to protect (there's that dirty word again) their investors.
Imagine if the police were privatized. Businesses are driven by the market. Their only goal is to make a profit. It's much more profitable to write parking tickets than to stop murders, right? So our private police will concentrate most of their effort on writing tickets, and little on stopping murders, and if they don't, the market will crush them, they'll go bankrupt, and a new, more profit-centric police force will take their place. The free market serves only itself; if we want it to serve actual human beings (which we do, right?), it needs to be leashed or it'll smash people to bits some of the time.
Post a Comment
<< Home