Hacker News Reader

Comment by lotsofpulp | Hacker News Reader

That is not viable nor the responsibility of an individual business.

Businesses have a legal obligation to not discriminate against lots of recognized classes. Those without credit cards should be protected as well, because living in this country should not require you to participate in a debt-based system. If it did, it would be government of banks, not a democracy.

Forcing people to have a bank account or a credit card to buy food enforces a monopoly on money.

>Forcing people to have a bank account or a credit card to buy food enforces a monopoly on money.

And allowing businesses to not accept cash allows them to streamline operations and offering products/services at a lower price.

What does monopoly on money mean? Why didn’t Washington DC go out and invest in infrastructure to take cash from people and give them debit cards?

Because that would leave the politicians more liable and the costs are easily visible. Much easier for them to punt the responsibility and costs to a small portion of the voting populace.

There is no "forcing". If there is sufficient demand for paying with cash, then someone will start a business that accepts cash and charges more, thus making more profit. More people will start such businesses, driving down the price until the price accurately affects the additional risk plus market demand.

If no such business exists, it is because the cost of the risk/hassle of dealing in cash is too high compared to the low market demand.

This is akin to saying that if there were sufficient demand for free speech rights, privacy, or the abolition of slavery, markets would provide for those things - and that their removal is simply an economic function.

Like, if enough people want handjobs from non-sex-trafficked sex workers, surely some massage parlors will open to cater to ethical customers, right?

Markets do not guarantee civil rights, and they shouldn't be relied upon to do so. Moreover, their failure to do so should not be construed as a proof that broad enforcement of those rights would not improve both individual businesses and the wider economy. Nor should the economic impact be the sole reason for society to choose whether those rights are worth defending.

By your logic, businesses can choose to refuse service on the basis of race because a certain race is poorer on average - and people from that race just have to hope they will be served by another business that comes along to hoover up their money.

We as a civilization have decided that we don't want the market or a collection of individual businesses to make those sorts of decisions. Protecting people from predatory discrimination is the role of civil society and government, and why we make businesses conform to certain standards, whether they like it or not.

That’s a lot of words built on top of a rather flimsy assertion that using cash is a civil rights issue, which I don’t think any court has actually ruled on. It seems like a right that people have invented from thin air.

The answer to people being unbanked is to make banking easier and less discriminatory. Not to force everybody to accept cash.

Classes covered under Title IX aren't necessarily covered by the Constitution, but our democracy has recognized that they need protection. Civil rights are rights outlined in law and reinforced by the courts. They're not pulled from thin air. If you believe that there is no right to spend your income without first depositing it into a third party for-profit bank for safekeeping, then make that case.

You can claim that anything is a civil rights issue by selectively distorting statistics in your favor. Let’s wait until courts weigh in on this.

Okay, then let's not force businesses to make their buildings wheelchair-accessible either, because most customers can walk. If some customers can't shop there anymore then the market will take care of that problem too, right?

>then someone will start a business

I hate this argument that "someone will start business"

No. If people will struggle with getting food then they will adjust and get cards despite not liking it. Nobody will open business for them.

For me this is some kind of free markets naivety

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” - Anatole France

It’s an expensive burger restaurant, not a grocery store. Having a bank account and a debit card doesn’t mean “participating in a debt-based system”.

Yea, both of those things mean participating in a debt-based system. If your money is all on loan from your credit card company, or in a bank that charges you fees to get it out, you literally have nothing. I don't give a flying fuck how expensive the hamburger is, the same thing applies to Dollar General or to tickets to the opera. A company FORCING consumers to use their money through a middle man bank creates a private currency that undermines the full faith and credit of the US government which itself is the only bulwark against mafias taking a piece of every transaction... and is only so because we have some say in its constitution. The government's assertion that we have a right to trade with its currency as opposed to that of a private bank is the assertion of our rights as citizens, not slaves to any given mafia or corporate power.

You must be using the wrong banks.

Are there retail banks in America which aren't run for profit? I wasn't aware. Should citizens be forced to keep their money with privately run institutions, which decide when and how and if they can access their money, in order to transact on the most basic level, in order to buy food? If so, the government effectively renounces its exclusive control of the currency.

Why do countries print currency? For the settlement of debts public and private. It's not merely a civil rights issue. It's a core governmental function to provide a public and universally accepted instrument of trade. Governments which partner with privately run banks and coerce citizens into using those banks are inherently corrupt.

This is like complaining that you need to buy a wallet or pants with pockets in order to carry cash, therefore the government has relinquished exclusive control over currency. No, they have not.

There are debit cards too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com