Posted on 08/13/2021 8:46:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
PAYPAL HOLDINGS, Inc, is an indispensable, American, global corporation, without whose services, financially transacting online is difficult. The company is worth $16.929 billion.
The worthless Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is a meddlesome shakedown operation, in the mold of the Southern Poverty Law Center, that has taken it upon itself to decide who lives and who dies socially and financially. People like Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson the ADL deems to be mired in white supremacism. What next?
The ADL and PayPal have conspired to ferret out “bigotry and extremism” from the financial industry, by which they mean ban thought crimes.
"Racism—systemic or other—remains nothing but thought crime: impolite and impolitic thoughts, spoken, written or preached. Thought crimes are nobody’s business in free societies."
In response to this particular collusion against thought crimes, Fox News personality Tucker Carlson has vowed to stay chipper. This is not sufficient a solution from so powerful a persona as Mr. Carlson.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ Solution
The requisite and fitting noblesse oblige comes from Justice Clarence Thomas.
As one of the few public intellectual to grasp the gravity of social and financial excommunication by Deep Tech (to denote Big Tech’s enmeshment with The State), and for proposing a way to prohibit wicked social and financial ouster of innocents—Justice Thomas is my hero.
To blabber on about simply finding alternative outlets to Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, PayPal and other banking facilities is asinine verging on the criminal. Coming from political representatives, such advice ought to guarantee loss of face, even political expulsion.
The ordinary guy or girl (check) is told to go up against economic and political entities whose revenues exceed the GDP of quite a number of G20 nations combined.
"It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information,” inveighs Justice Thomas:
“A person could always choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today's digital platforms, nothing is."
I’d go further. It would hardly be hyperbole, in driving home Justice Thomas’s ingenious point, to put it thus:
With respect to financial de-platforming, barring someone from PayPal is like prohibiting a passenger from crossing the English Channel by high-speed train, via ferry and by means of 90 percent of airplanes.
“Sure, some options remain for you to explore, you hapless loser. Go to it!”
Thomas has argued in favor of the "two legal doctrines" that "limit the right of a private company to exclude":
The first doctrine, he explained, involves "common carriers," such as railroads and telegraphs, which have historically been required "to serve all comers." The second involves "places of public accommodation" or amusement, such as inns, restaurants, and theaters, which have generally been forbidden from denying service to certain categories of people. "The similarities between some digital platforms and common carriers or places of accommodation," Thomas wrote, "may give legislators strong arguments for similarly regulating digital platforms." (Via Reason.)
The requisite and fitting noblesse oblige comes from Justice Clarence Thomas.
As one of the few public intellectual to grasp the gravity of social and financial excommunication by Deep Tech (to denote Big Tech’s enmeshment with The State), and for proposing a way to prohibit wicked social and financial ouster of innocents—Justice Thomas is my hero.
To blabber on about simply finding alternative outlets to Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, PayPal and other banking facilities is asinine verging on the criminal. Coming from political representatives, such advice ought to guarantee loss of face, even political expulsion.
The ordinary guy or girl (check) is told to go up against economic and political entities whose revenues exceed the GDP of quite a number of G20 nations combined.
"It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information,” inveighs Justice Thomas:
“A person could always choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today's digital platforms, nothing is."
I’d go further. It would hardly be hyperbole, in driving home Justice Thomas’s ingenious point, to put it thus:
With respect to financial de-platforming, barring someone from PayPal is like prohibiting a passenger from crossing the English Channel by high-speed train, via ferry and by means of 90 percent of airplanes.
“Sure, some options remain for you to explore, you hapless loser. Go to it!”
Thomas has argued in favor of the "two legal doctrines" that "limit the right of a private company to exclude":
The first doctrine, he explained, involves "common carriers," such as railroads and telegraphs, which have historically been required "to serve all comers." The second involves "places of public accommodation" or amusement, such as inns, restaurants, and theaters, which have generally been forbidden from denying service to certain categories of people. "The similarities between some digital platforms and common carriers or places of accommodation," Thomas wrote, "may give legislators strong arguments for similarly regulating digital platforms." (Via Reason.)
Isn’t that their usual fall back?
Do they not have editors working at Town Hall? This is a bowl of alphabet soup. I would like to share it with people, but though the content is good the presentation is worse than a High School student would do.
Throwing the words Noblesse Oblige into it cuts off at least 50% of the American populace.
“Bake me a damned cake!!” is NOT what they are doing. They are not being asked to accept a special commission but to provide an off the shelf product.
This is a common misconception on FR. It is wrong.
Seller/Customer relationship is simple. They point to something on the shelf, you take it down, they give you money, you give them the product, they leave.
A Commission is an Employer/Employee relationship. Which is why you may turn down a commission for any or no reason.
You are not obliged to take a job you do not care to.
Even if they pay you.
You are not a slave.
The moment you are obliged to accept a commission you do become a slave. Which is why I have stood firm from day one on my position and why I get so incredibly annoyed at the meat heads who do not understand the difference between a customer and a client.
It is not semantics or a technicality it is the basis of all freedom. The right to say no.
Use a credit card.
Ditto.
Ditto.
BKMK
Correct . . . and Arlen Specter, for all the rotten things he did during his political career, provided the necessary push to get him confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
If the seller doesn’t have the infrastructure, PayPal provides it. Think things like ebay. Or a one-person craft shop.
I’ve yet to encounter a situation like that. But maybe that’s just me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.