🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@koherecoWatchdog I recently had dealing with lawyers about black mail.. the act does not need to be illegal, it only needs to seek to defame.

While your explanation as to what trump did makes sense, and sure, sounds like it is illegal from an IRS perspective... it is clear stormy daniels taking the money was blackmail in my eyes.

I'm all for seeing trump arrested and all.. .but im so confused...

Hush money isnt illegal... however taking money as a payment to not release personal and damaging information to the public, that is blackmail and IS illegal... so if anything isnt Stormy Daniels the one doing something illegal by blackmailing trump and accepting a pay off to not go public?

@koherecoWatchdog

I said it should be against the law to exclude people based on the business they deal in.. that isnt the same to say they need to accept everyone without any conditions of any kind.

If you want to exclude someone because they are below a certain minimum income threshold, or cant keep a certain amount of money in their account, etc... fine... But if they want to exclude someone for where they get their money (which should not be information the bank can access) not fine.

As I said before its like saying "It should be illegal to discriminate against gay people and refuse to sell them a cake because their gay", this is not the same as saying that everyone has the right to cake.. There are other reasons you may get denied access to cake, for one, maybe because you cant afford it.

@rms

@koherecoWatchdog

You hqavent made that case to me... I see no reason in anything you said that you cant be granted a right to privacy even if there isnt an explicit right to be unbanked... though i am all for any laws that ensure you have a right to be unbanked, so im fine with securing that right as well.

@rms

@koherecoWatchdog @rms

Im not advocating for the right to have a bank account, that might be a natural consequence of a right to privacy, but it isnt the direct principle at play.

@koherecoWatchdog I never said anything about "the right to have a bank account" so everything that follows from that statement is moot.

I said that **if** you have a back account you have a right to privacy over your transactions. They can deny you a bank account all you want, they just cant use who you take or give money to as a criteria to do so since that will not be information available to them.

The right to not be discriminated against if your gay when you buy a cake does not imply a right for everyone to own cakes.. the logic is similar.

@koherecoWatchdog

Agreed, which is why they will violate privacy as long as they are allowed to do so, and the urge to maximize profits will always be too high for them to be privacy respecting due to market pressures... which is exactly why we need to make it a law and force them (And all of their competition) to be privacy respecting.

@rms

@koherecoWatchdog But no one is suggesting anything that would assume everyone has a bank account.. I am suggestions protections for people who do have a bank account to enable them to safely use that account to interact with people who dont. Without fear of IRS reprisal.

@koherecoWatchdog

they can profit as a bank just fine not knowing where my money came from.. Yes they do violate my privacy to make more money im sure, but there is no inherent need to do so.

Im not saying they cant have some info, how much I deposit, when, , how long my money stays in there... fine.. but they do not need to know who i am transacting with and why to make profit.

@rms

@koherecoWatchdog

I disagree, if we have a fundemental right here a bank can not legally invade our privacy and review the source and destination of our transactions (without a court order) then we can facilitate accepting cash transactions from people who do not have bank accounts, and better secure the right to not needing one.

@rms

@koherecoWatchdog

Semantics arent really important to me, whether calling it an indirect requirement is appropriate or not is not something that has value to debate... the point is, the laws in place make it virtually impossible to run a large business without using a bank.

Honestly banks shouldnt even be able to know how or where your money comes from, that information should not be accessible to them as I should have some garuntee of privacy over my money.

@rms

@koherecoWatchdog

AsI said at the onset, the law does not directly forbid the transaction, but it indirectly makes it infeasible effectively making banks a requirement indirectly.

@rms

@koherecoWatchdog

It isnt their "choice" it is forced upon them due to the requirements placed upon them by the IRS.

@rms

@koherecoWatchdog
=
Have you ever tried to buy an expensive car from a car dealership with cash? Good luck, and they will claim its due to the requirements of IRS reporting that they need to verify the legitimate source of the money before taking it, and therefore wont.

@rms

@koherecoWatchdog

Yup I am aware, and I am saying that should be against the law.

@rms

@trinsec We call those people drug addicts :)

@koherecoWatchdog

Not entierly true.. Purchases over 10K must show a paper trail and must be reported. I have tried to buy cars and even homes with cash, they simply wont take it without a detail trail on the money.

@rms

@koherecoWatchdog @rms

Originally from the USA, thugh thyese days I spend little time there though I do maintain a business and home in the USA.

In the USA a bank is not **directly** required by law, but it is effectively required by law as a consequence of other less direct laws.

For example, I cant legally send cash in the mail, I cant legally transport cash across borders, You cant legally pay for things in large quantities of cash without the help of a bank to show a paper trail, etc.

For all intents and purposes the other existing laws make it impossible to deal with large amounts of money without a bank account.

I should have never drank coffee this morning... i feel like shit now.