If a group of libertarians wanted to promote, if not actively assert, the non-aggression principle in a business they've started, wouldn't they make a condition of use that the customer does not knowingly provide false, inaccurate, or misleading information? Indeed, to omit such a stipulation is to remain silent—and thus complicit—in assisting fraud, aka coercion.
On that basis, the proviso is not an issue. The challenge is determining what constitutes "bad" information since this requires making a judgment, which can lead to disagreement.
However, if a Venmo customer concludes their information is being censored, not logically refuted, can they not avail themselves of an alternative in the marketplace of ideas via a competitor?
Thus, if a customer is displeased that Venmo won't let them proselytize that climate change is a hoax, they could always take their case to Trump's Social network where such a view is (warmly) welcome.
The other observation is the ascendancy of religion-based, so-called Parent's Rights, denigrated thus because the impetus is treating their progeny as if their property to mold as they wish without limit, neglecting that the child possesses core rights, regardless of age. Chiefly, the right not to have the vulnerability of their innocent, undeveloped minds damaged from the manipulations of "false, inaccurate, or misleading information" that characterizes a religious upbringing.
To the extent that Venmo might be a scaled-down trial for government infantilizing adults, any adult claiming parent's rights as currently structured in US culture is already primed to commit the same crime against their offspring. Venmo is simply a market response to a demand for top-down domination. On that basis, unless we allow that the market does not always incentivize moral (non-coercive), then Venmo is inevitable but merely one small, new decoration on a massive edifice of oppression beginning with religion, not the government.
This is an excellent example of how NO ONE should WANT a government to “TAKE CARE OF YOU”.
I can do that just fine, thanks.
Excellent find and article, Dan, keep them coming!
Two observations:
If a group of libertarians wanted to promote, if not actively assert, the non-aggression principle in a business they've started, wouldn't they make a condition of use that the customer does not knowingly provide false, inaccurate, or misleading information? Indeed, to omit such a stipulation is to remain silent—and thus complicit—in assisting fraud, aka coercion.
On that basis, the proviso is not an issue. The challenge is determining what constitutes "bad" information since this requires making a judgment, which can lead to disagreement.
However, if a Venmo customer concludes their information is being censored, not logically refuted, can they not avail themselves of an alternative in the marketplace of ideas via a competitor?
Thus, if a customer is displeased that Venmo won't let them proselytize that climate change is a hoax, they could always take their case to Trump's Social network where such a view is (warmly) welcome.
The other observation is the ascendancy of religion-based, so-called Parent's Rights, denigrated thus because the impetus is treating their progeny as if their property to mold as they wish without limit, neglecting that the child possesses core rights, regardless of age. Chiefly, the right not to have the vulnerability of their innocent, undeveloped minds damaged from the manipulations of "false, inaccurate, or misleading information" that characterizes a religious upbringing.
To the extent that Venmo might be a scaled-down trial for government infantilizing adults, any adult claiming parent's rights as currently structured in US culture is already primed to commit the same crime against their offspring. Venmo is simply a market response to a demand for top-down domination. On that basis, unless we allow that the market does not always incentivize moral (non-coercive), then Venmo is inevitable but merely one small, new decoration on a massive edifice of oppression beginning with religion, not the government.