|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 1, 2023 9:09:56 GMT
A little helper has arrived, and one that has no idea about the ideals behind libertarianism. Argue the point rather that dismiss the person. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2023 9:13:35 GMT
A little helper has arrived, and one that has no idea about the ideals behind libertarianism. Argue the point rather that dismiss the person. I can do both, which I did. If you're dependent on somebody who is on half the forum's ignore list then that if your own failing. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 1, 2023 9:17:08 GMT
Are the banks allowed their opinion as well? Should banks be forced to provide everyone a bank account? I think they should, as a quid pro quo for colluding over decades with the enforcement of a society where it is becoming virtually impossible to function without one I wouldn't use your words but yes banking is an essential service, just like water and power. Do you remember how many years the government fought to get the banks to offer a basic bank account to everyone and how pathetic they were. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 1, 2023 9:18:14 GMT
A little helper has arrived, and one that has no idea about the ideals behind libertarianism. Who are you referring to? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 1, 2023 9:19:45 GMT
Argue the point rather that dismiss the person. I can do both, which I did. If you're dependent on somebody who is on half the forum's ignore list then that if your own failing. Then ignore them. There are far too many pointless insults on here. Its possible to disagree without petty insults. This sentence "A little helper has arrived, and one that has no idea about the ideals behind libertarianism" Contains no points being made to counter what the poster has said, its just a personal slight. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2023 9:21:57 GMT
I can do both, which I did. If you're dependent on somebody who is on half the forum's ignore list then that if your own failing. Then ignore them. There are far too many pointless insults on here. Its possible to disagree without petty insults. This sentence "A little helper has arrived, and one that has no idea about the ideals behind libertarianism" Contains no points being made to counter what the poster has said, its just a personal slight. My point stands, and I rely on others to draw their own conclusions. I am not an authority on here and I do not believe that your attempt to take the thread off-topic undermines my arguments, even if you may want them buried in a mountain of pointless posts that follow. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 1, 2023 9:26:16 GMT
A little helper has arrived, and one that has no idea about the ideals behind libertarianism. Was this directed at me? If it was, I'll happily go toe-to-toe with you on the subject of libertarianism. Start a thread and let's get to it. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jul 1, 2023 9:37:49 GMT
Pacifico is right here some people expressing their delight because they revel in seeing someone they don’t like being treated in this way,frankly they should be ashamed of themselves and their motives. Regards the ludicrous brainwashed by brexit comment it now appears a vicar had his account closed because he contacted a building society to ask why they were promoting lgbtq issues and politely by all accounts. He is entitled to his opinion and they could’ve replied their reasons but chose to close his account,interestingly he said they are a financial institution and should stick to managing finance,he’s right insofar as closing accounts because they don’t like someone’s views. Are the banks allowed their opinion as well? Should banks be forced to provide everyone a bank account? No banks shouldn't be allowed an opinion they may have a policy,if someone challenges their policies they should reply explain what they are and the reason they hold them what they should not do is summarily close their accounts,this leaves the individual the right if they wish to take their business elsewhere. It seems you are confusing institutions policies and individual opinions which are two different things. Such institutions provide in this case a financial service,they are free to have any legally held policy they wish,what they are not entitled to is regulating an individual’s opinion or free speech. As to this Yes they should for several reasons not least the relentless drive to a cashless society where no account would leave you in no man’s land. There was a thread recently around this which I may refer to later. The FCA should regulate on this and any account should only be closed for,reasons and by authority such as this www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60623026regards the above link I was searching to see if the BBC had any reference to Farages account woes,they don’t but I came across this,anyway should I contact the BBC and ask why they thought Farages story not newsworthy your quote above begs the question should they because they don’t like my enquiry they have the right to withdraw my licence and access to certain broadcast media,clearly too that is wrong. Finally and cut short reply so I don’t lose it my response to Darlings post he is one who should be ashamed of his comments,I wouldn’t see his opinion regulated by having his bank account closed and why he can’t see the threat to everyone’s rights only he knows. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 1, 2023 9:50:13 GMT
Are the banks allowed their opinion as well? Should banks be forced to provide everyone a bank account? No banks shouldn't be allowed an opinion they may have a policy,if someone challenges their policies they should reply explain what they are and the reason they hold them what they should not do is summarily close their accounts,this leaves the individual the right if they wish to take their business elsewhere. It seems you are confusing institutions policies and individual opinions which are two different things. Such institutions provide in this case a financial service,they are free to have any legally held policy they wish,what they are not entitled to is regulating an individual’s opinion or free speech. As to this Yes they should for several reasons not least the relentless drive to a cashless society where no account would leave you in no man’s land. There was a thread recently around this which I may refer to later. The FCA should regulate on this and any account should only be closed for,reasons and by authority such as this www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60623026regards the above link I was searching to see if the BBC had any reference to Farages account woes,they don’t but I came across this,anyway should I contact the BBC and ask why they thought Farages story not newsworthy your quote above begs the question should they because they don’t like my enquiry they have the right to withdraw my licence and access to certain broadcast media,clearly too that is wrong. Finally and cut short reply so I don’t lose it my response to Darlings post he is one who should be ashamed of his comments,I wouldn’t see his opinion regulated by having his bank account closed and why he can’t see the threat to everyone’s rights only he knows. Effectively, you are arguing that banks should operate on good faith principles. English contract law is driven by libertarian principles, and, therefore, has only a weak form of the doctrine of good faith. Ironically for you and all Brexit voters, the EU is currently working to create an EU wide law of contract that has the doctrine of good faith at its core - that will provide protection to people who find themselves in the same situation as the Manfrog. You voted to leave that. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jul 1, 2023 10:05:10 GMT
No banks shouldn't be allowed an opinion they may have a policy,if someone challenges their policies they should reply explain what they are and the reason they hold them what they should not do is summarily close their accounts,this leaves the individual the right if they wish to take their business elsewhere. It seems you are confusing institutions policies and individual opinions which are two different things. Such institutions provide in this case a financial service,they are free to have any legally held policy they wish,what they are not entitled to is regulating an individual’s opinion or free speech. As to this Yes they should for several reasons not least the relentless drive to a cashless society where no account would leave you in no man’s land. There was a thread recently around this which I may refer to later. The FCA should regulate on this and any account should only be closed for,reasons and by authority such as this www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60623026regards the above link I was searching to see if the BBC had any reference to Farages account woes,they don’t but I came across this,anyway should I contact the BBC and ask why they thought Farages story not newsworthy your quote above begs the question should they because they don’t like my enquiry they have the right to withdraw my licence and access to certain broadcast media,clearly too that is wrong. Finally and cut short reply so I don’t lose it my response to Darlings post he is one who should be ashamed of his comments,I wouldn’t see his opinion regulated by having his bank account closed and why he can’t see the threat to everyone’s rights only he knows. Effectively, you are arguing that banks should operate on good faith principles. English contract law is driven by libertarian principles, and, therefore, has only a weak form of the doctrine of good faith. Ironically for you and all Brexit voters, the EU is currently working to create an EU wide law of contract that has the doctrine of good faith at its core - that will provide protection to people who find themselves in the same situation as the Manfrog. You voted to leave that. Ironically all you can crow about is Brexit and whilst all who voted in that to leave be portrayed as idiots whilst elsewhere you project others rights and then happily and then gleefully celebrate the loss of another’s rights. This thread is not about Brexit or even Farage it is about individual rights which can and should be regulated by and legislated by our position outside the eu and will be with sufficient pressure across the political spectrum by any who hold freedom dear. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 1, 2023 10:12:15 GMT
Effectively, you are arguing that banks should operate on good faith principles. English contract law is driven by libertarian principles, and, therefore, has only a weak form of the doctrine of good faith. Ironically for you and all Brexit voters, the EU is currently working to create an EU wide law of contract that has the doctrine of good faith at its core - that will provide protection to people who find themselves in the same situation as the Manfrog. You voted to leave that. Ironically all you can crow about is Brexit and whilst all who voted in that to leave be portrayed as idiots whilst elsewhere you project others rights and then happily and then gleefully celebrate the loss of another’s rights. This thread is not about Brexit or even Farage it is about individual rights which can and should be regulated by and legislated by our position outside the eu and will be with sufficient pressure across the political spectrum by any who hold freedom dear. Yes, it's about rights. Specifically, it is about consumer rights. The EU is all about creating and protecting consumer rights. The Manfrog is complaining that his consumer rights have been violated (he is saying that he has a right to be a consumer of banking services). Yet, he was a force behind the UK decision to leave an organisation that is concerned to protect the very thing he is complaining he doesn't have under UK law. You're so completely blinkered, you can't even see the irony of the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 1, 2023 10:16:43 GMT
Then ignore them. There are far too many pointless insults on here. Its possible to disagree without petty insults. This sentence "A little helper has arrived, and one that has no idea about the ideals behind libertarianism" Contains no points being made to counter what the poster has said, its just a personal slight. My point stands, and I rely on others to draw their own conclusions. I am not an authority on here and I do not believe that your attempt to take the thread off-topic undermines my arguments, even if you may want them buried in a mountain of pointless posts that follow. You didn't make an argument you insulted another poster. "A little helper has arrived, and one that has no idea about the ideals behind libertarianism" Is not an argument, its an insult. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jul 1, 2023 10:21:13 GMT
Ironically all you can crow about is Brexit and whilst all who voted in that to leave be portrayed as idiots whilst elsewhere you project others rights and then happily and then gleefully celebrate the loss of another’s rights. This thread is not about Brexit or even Farage it is about individual rights which can and should be regulated by and legislated by our position outside the eu and will be with sufficient pressure across the political spectrum by any who hold freedom dear. Yes, it's about rights. Specifically, it is about consumer rights. The EU is all about creating and protecting consumer rights. The Manfrog is complaining that his consumer rights have been violated (he is saying that he has a right to be a consumer of banking services). Yet, he was a force behind the UK decision to leave an organisation that is concerned to protect the very thing he is complaining he doesn't have under UK law. You're so completely blinkered, you can't even see the irony of the situation. And you are so blinkered by your distaste of brexit that we are as we stand now and such things as this can be legislated for within the laws of this land. Why can’t youundertand this is not about brexit? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 1, 2023 10:25:59 GMT
Yes, it's about rights. Specifically, it is about consumer rights. The EU is all about creating and protecting consumer rights. The Manfrog is complaining that his consumer rights have been violated (he is saying that he has a right to be a consumer of banking services). Yet, he was a force behind the UK decision to leave an organisation that is concerned to protect the very thing he is complaining he doesn't have under UK law. You're so completely blinkered, you can't even see the irony of the situation. And you are so blinkered by your distaste of brexit that we are as we stand now and such things as this can be legislated for within the laws of this land. Why can’t youundertand this is not about brexit? It's about consumer rights. Farage is complaining that he is being denied the right to be a consumer of banking services. The EU has been the primary source of consumer rights in the UK over the last 40 years. I'm enjoying the irony that the man who wanted to leave that is now whinging that his consumer rights are being violated. Tough luck if you don't like that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2023 10:29:21 GMT
My point stands, and I rely on others to draw their own conclusions. I am not an authority on here and I do not believe that your attempt to take the thread off-topic undermines my arguments, even if you may want them buried in a mountain of pointless posts that follow. You didn't make an argument you insulted another poster. "A little helper has arrived, and one that has no idea about the ideals behind libertarianism" Is not an argument, its an insult. I don't care what your tantrum is about, Zanygame. It's irrelevant and only demostrates the fact that I have invoked an emotional response from my brutally honest post. I will not cower to the intimidation and tyranny that EUphiles not only endorse, but also incorporate into their hate campaign. |
|
