This gets pretty tricky - telling a bank they need to keep dealing with customers that cost them tons of money and are actively trying to defraud them (and other customers) seems awfully harsh.
I think the government should provide a basic bank account to anyone who wants one though.
So, the legal system? The only reason regulated banks should be able to deplatform someone is if they also have a legally actionable case, and they do legally action it, and the person is found guilty.
If being banked is so critical (and it is, in modern society) then it shouldn't be handled solely by private enterprise. Government needs to step in and offer basic services.
Banks have special rules because they are infrastructure. A cafe needs a bank but not vice versa.
I don't think "you can't fire a customer" is a good one though.
There's also a distinction between not being able to use a particular bank and not being able to use any bank. It's important that everyone be able to use some bank, but not that everyone can use Chase, but it's tough to regulate that. Again, this is why I see a government option as necessary.
Locking up the money is basically theft, but I'm sure the law and regulations say otherwise.
Private companies should be allowed to print private notes. (Of course, with distinctive designs etc. We don't want anyone fooled into mixing them up.)
Strawman all you want, but there's a big difference between social media and finance.
It would probably be more reasonable to make some sort of tightly regulated basic bank account that banks would be required to offer in some situations.
Nobody would be happy, but hold all deposits for a long period, so that they fully clear. Possibly restrict the sources of funds; maybe a basic bank account can only accept payroll and government deposits, maybe a limit of N unique payers per unit time. Etc. Social security and state benefit programs have specialized accounts for people without other bank accounts, because it works better than sending checks in the mail, maybe one of those programs could be slightly more generalized.
Allow a bank to refuse to service an otherwise qualifying basic banking customer only if the bank goes through a court process and/or is accompanied by actual criminal charges filed.
Yeah, I'd be ok with this. Require banks to provide some MVP 'bank account' to anyone that isn't already declared banking-persona-non-grata by the courts.
Absolutely agree. Holding and transferring money should be a basic human right.
