PayPal and Visa are dicks.
-
Do you really think I am going to give you a second chance to run to Chris and complain about hurt feelings? Buzz off.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
And as I said before, if you are refused service you absolutely have the right to sue.
Ok great so why does everyone else claim you can't? Are you sure it also applies when there are only pure financial damages?
Alan Burkhart wrote:
And why do you feel that a business should not be allowed to refuse or suspend services?
No that's not what I meant. They should not be allowed to refuse service without a good reason. That last bit is critical.
David1987 wrote:
They should not be allowed to refuse service without a good reason.
And just who defines "good reason?" That's rather subjective. A business should able to refuse service to anyone for any reason as long as civil rights laws are respected. Business owners have rights, too.
XAlan Burkhart
-
David1987 wrote:
They should not be allowed to refuse service without a good reason.
And just who defines "good reason?" That's rather subjective. A business should able to refuse service to anyone for any reason as long as civil rights laws are respected. Business owners have rights, too.
XAlan Burkhart
As always, court. Meaning that it should be possible to sue a busyness for having a bad reason to refuse service.
Alan Burkhart wrote:
A business should able to refuse service to anyone for any reason as long as civil rights laws are respected.
Nope, too dangerous. Civil rights laws leave too opportunity for them to screw you. Of course they could also fix the problem there; I really don't care how this is fixed, but the current situation is dangerous.
-
jschell wrote:
For example a coal company in a 3rd world company decides they don't like my 19th cousin removed and consequently every utility company in my country refuses to provide electricity to me.
I find it fascinating that time after time after time in this thread, I have examples handed to me of utilities with government sponsored monopolies denying service as an "example." Visa is not a utility. Visa is not government-sponsored. Visa is not a monopoly. Visa has the right to choose who it allows to use its services. Your franchise analogy makes some, though not complete, sense as a description of Visa's relationship with the acquirers it allows to offer visanet access to merchants. Franchisers are strictly bound by a contract that specifies just about all aspects of their operation, simply because what they do is seen as a reflection on the basic brand. Likewise, acquirers have no ability or right to decide to process transactions for anyone that Visa does not wish to do business with. I would point out that your local electric utility company, in addition to being a public utility required to provide service to all who are willing to pay, is probably not a franchise operation of any coal companies in the third world.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
I find it fascinating that time after time after time in this thread, I have examples handed to me of utilities with government sponsored monopolies denying service as an "example." Visa is not a utility. Visa is not government-sponsored. Visa is not a monopoly. Visa has the right to choose who it allows to use its services.
No idea what you are talking about. My utility company is only a monopoly to the extent that my city allows it to be - by contract. It makes profit, it discontinues service, restarts service, markets itself and seeks to grow. Certainly unclear how it is different than any other company. But you can insert any other disparate enterprises with weak connections into my example and it still applies.
Oakman wrote:
I would point out that your local electric utility company, in addition to being a public utility required to provide service to all who are willing to pay, is probably not a franchise operation of any coal companies in the third world.
That however has nothing to do with the original point that the relationship with the customer is very weak, has an absolute impact and based on knee-jerk reactions. If any of those were not true, especially the second, then the 'right' of the company might be allowed to trump the rights of the individual. But that isn't the case.
-
jschell wrote:
Err..not even close to an analogy.
What analogy? You were implying that the government could not deny people the right to work. I showed that they could and have.
jschell wrote:
I doubt that assertion is true at all.
So when you can't argue your point of view, you just call the other guy a liar? I'm done with you and this thread.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
What analogy?
Driving and working are analogies. Claiming that inability to drive leads to no work is stretching the analogies to a breaking points since the first is not a right but a priviledge and one doesn't need it work (all occupations.) And as I pointed out the reasons that one can't drive are documented.
Oakman wrote:
So when you can't argue your point of view, you just call the other guy a liar?
I phrased that poorly. So re-addressing it...you said.... "Unions often sign contracts with companies that mean that anyone the union chooses to blackball cannot work for that company." First if a company is an all union shop then employees must belong to the union. They are not denied work because the union has "backballed" them but because they do not belong to the union. Joining the union solves that. Expulsion from a union is very rare and the most common cause by a signficant factor is failure to pay dues. And the reasons one can be expelled are clearly documented. And documented when one joins. Presumably there are cases where members are unfairly expelled for personal reasons but they are rare (And still do not impact the ability to work elsewhere.) Second the fact that one cannot work for a company (singular) is NOT the same as denying one the ability to work at all. There are magnitudes of difference in that. In terms of the original discussion someone might not be able to get a credit card from a Credit Union because one does not meet the requirements for that instution. But that is NOT the same as be precluding from ALL credit institutions. The only way your union comment applies at all is if you are claiming that if the teachers unions (plural since there is more than one) expells someone then they will not be able to get a job as a engineer, retail clerk, mechanic or even dishwasher.
-
As always, court. Meaning that it should be possible to sue a busyness for having a bad reason to refuse service.
Alan Burkhart wrote:
A business should able to refuse service to anyone for any reason as long as civil rights laws are respected.
Nope, too dangerous. Civil rights laws leave too opportunity for them to screw you. Of course they could also fix the problem there; I really don't care how this is fixed, but the current situation is dangerous.
David1987 wrote:
I really don't care how this is fixed, but the current situation is dangerous.
You're tilting at windmills. How many times have you been refused service? I'm 53 and I've been refused once (as mentioned earlier) and I got that resolved inside of a week.
David1987 wrote:
Civil rights laws leave too opportunity for them to screw you.
Such as?
XAlan Burkhart
-
David1987 wrote:
I really don't care how this is fixed, but the current situation is dangerous.
You're tilting at windmills. How many times have you been refused service? I'm 53 and I've been refused once (as mentioned earlier) and I got that resolved inside of a week.
David1987 wrote:
Civil rights laws leave too opportunity for them to screw you.
Such as?
XAlan Burkhart
-
Not me personally, but other people have.
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Such as?
Companies have the right to steal your money (by not refunding) as long as their contract says they can. That doesn't even make sense.
David1987 wrote:
Companies have the right to steal your money (by not refunding) as long as their contract says they can. That doesn't even make sense.
If you don't like the contract, don't sign it.
XAlan Burkhart
-
David1987 wrote:
Companies have the right to steal your money (by not refunding) as long as their contract says they can. That doesn't even make sense.
If you don't like the contract, don't sign it.
XAlan Burkhart
Ah yes, that means you can't do anything anymore. They all write contracts that they can't possibly break because they're allowed Anything, and that is generally designed to screw you over. That won't do. Some things have to be illegal no matter what the contract says. And some things are, just not enough of them.
-
Ah yes, that means you can't do anything anymore. They all write contracts that they can't possibly break because they're allowed Anything, and that is generally designed to screw you over. That won't do. Some things have to be illegal no matter what the contract says. And some things are, just not enough of them.
David1987 wrote:
Some things have to be illegal no matter what the contract says. And some things are, just not enough of them.
Sounds to me like you won't be happy until the world is tailored specifically to suit your whim.
XAlan Burkhart
-
David1987 wrote:
Some things have to be illegal no matter what the contract says. And some things are, just not enough of them.
Sounds to me like you won't be happy until the world is tailored specifically to suit your whim.
XAlan Burkhart
Of course not. Why should I be. "oh how lovely! things are exactly the way I don't want them to be!" doesn't make sense does it. That's an other issue though and this is not merely my whim, but a gross unfairness and extrajudicial punishment. Oakman obviously loves unfairness and calls it freedom, but a big part of the purpose of the law is to minimize unfairness (sometimes taken to ridiculous extremes, especially when it comes to when you can fire employees which is basically never).
-
Of course not. Why should I be. "oh how lovely! things are exactly the way I don't want them to be!" doesn't make sense does it. That's an other issue though and this is not merely my whim, but a gross unfairness and extrajudicial punishment. Oakman obviously loves unfairness and calls it freedom, but a big part of the purpose of the law is to minimize unfairness (sometimes taken to ridiculous extremes, especially when it comes to when you can fire employees which is basically never).
There is no guarantee of fairness in the world. The Constitution does not guarantee it. In life there are winners and losers, and any attempt to mandate fairness in all things will only result in all of us being reduced to the lowest common denominator. And that of course, isn't fair either. Freedom is the only true fairness, because in essence you're able to go out do whatever you think you're capable of doing, be it for good or ill. That means that while some people win, others will lose. When you lose, learn from it and come back fighting a little harder and smarter. Every loss is a lesson, and every win is a reward for lessons learned.
XAlan Burkhart
-
There is no guarantee of fairness in the world. The Constitution does not guarantee it. In life there are winners and losers, and any attempt to mandate fairness in all things will only result in all of us being reduced to the lowest common denominator. And that of course, isn't fair either. Freedom is the only true fairness, because in essence you're able to go out do whatever you think you're capable of doing, be it for good or ill. That means that while some people win, others will lose. When you lose, learn from it and come back fighting a little harder and smarter. Every loss is a lesson, and every win is a reward for lessons learned.
XAlan Burkhart
Of course there is no guarantee of general fairness. That doesn't mean that no effort should be made though. And no, freedom is not fairness. Freedom for any entity leads to huge power imbalances, especially between those with deep pockets and those without. Even freedom just for actual people (excl. companies) would work slightly better, but a similar problem would still exist. And I hope you don't mean actual freedom, ie no rules at all, because that would mean chaos.