[generalpass]

> I was reading Stripe and Braintree's restricted businesses (https://stripe.com/restricted-businesses) and saw "unauthorized sale or resale of brand name or designer products or services". If I own something physical there should be nothing telling me I can't sell it.

Property rights also apply to Stripe, in that the company, as an asset itself, can be restricted by its owners to conduct business in some certain way.

And I wouldn't be surprised if Stripe's policies will have more to do with the credit card companies than Stripe. Then, further, the credit card companies act as a cartel by using the government to prevent anyone else from using property to create a competing service by making the ROI on creating a competing service worse than other investment opportunities, or even just blocking it outright under some nebulous "shut down for accounting irregularities" or "insufficient consumer protections" nonsense.

[devmunchies]

> I wouldn't be surprised if Stripe's policies will have more to do with the credit card companies than Stripe

That's what i figured, which is why I included braintree to not throw Stripe under the bus alone.

[gowld]

When someone speaks of property rights, they usually mean their own rights, not others'.

[generalpass]

> When someone speaks of property rights, they usually mean their own rights, not others'.

This is completely your own assertion and suggests a lack of understanding of property rights. How can I talk about property rights under the assumption that they apply only to me, unless I believe that I am the only one in the universe with property rights?