[willprice89]

I had never heard the term "jawboning" before. According to Merriam-Webster it is "the use of public appeals (as by a president) to influence the actions especially of business and labor leaders" or "broadly : the use of spoken persuasion".

Regarding TFA: I don't think trading freedoms of one group (the platform users) for those of another (the platform operators) is a good solution. Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service. The solution being explored in the EU makes more sense: facilitate competition so users have more choice of platforms. Or another alternative: can we reduce the power of small but vocal minorities to prevent them from "jawboning" companies?

[jjav]

> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service.

Given their market dominance, they should absolutely not have any right to refuse service. At that level of scale, they need to be treated like common carriers, who must handle all communications/transactions.

[FirmwareBurner]

THIS. Why is this PoV even controversial? Especially given that the videogames in question weren't even illegal.

Hell, I don't even like those games, but it's about the precedent of corporate overreach: if it's all legal, Visa/MasterCard shouldn't be able to decide for me what games I'm allowed to buy, no matter how weird they may be. It's not their job to judge the legal kinks I'm up to in the privacy of my own home.

If the gov doesn't clamp down hard on them, I can only assume the gov is in on this grift of having corporations acting as unofficial censors and freedom of speech moderators for the state under the loophole of "the state didn't mess with your constitutional rights to freedom of expression, but what you did broke the ToS of the payment processors, so now they're free to de-bank you and take away your ability to buy and sell things. Tsk tsk, shouldn't have sent those memes making fun of JD Vance and Trump I guess".

[coldpie]

> THIS. Why is this PoV even controversial?

Because it is stating that the government should control private behavior, which bumps into free speech and freedom of association issues. That gets pretty controversial.

There are other solutions to the stated problem:

> Given their market dominance, they should absolutely not have any right to refuse service.

The fix is to address the precondition in that statement: their market dominance. If a single entity is so powerful that it can control entire markets, then the problem is not what it does with that power, but that it has that power in the first place.

The solution to this problem is enforcing our existing anti-trust laws, not passing new laws to compel private behavior. We should not have only one or two entities that control this entire market. That's a sign of a broken market, and that's what must be addressed.

[const_cast]

We already compel private behavior all the time when the private sector starts acting public - i.e. by running infrastructure and being vital to the function of the public.

The real solution IMO is even more unpopular: nationalize them. If it's a public service it should be handled by the public sector, such that the entirety of the constitution applies. We might even consider funding it not with payment fees, but tax dollars. Every American has a desire to have reliable instant transactions. So they should all pay.

Effectively, they already are - the 2-3% tax on card processors is a tax. If we nationalize it, we can even lower it, since we'd not longer be burdened by the pursuit of profit.

[danaris]

The companies in question are monopolies. If you can't get your payments processed by Visa and Mastercard, you are effectively debanked.

We collectively agreed long ago that monopolies do not get to enjoy the same freedoms that other companies do.

[coldpie]

> We collectively agreed long ago that monopolies do not get to enjoy the same freedoms that other companies do.

I think that's generally only the case for natural monopolies, such as power infrastructure, where breaking them up isn't really a feasible solution (ie we don't want 20 different power lines running to each house). I don't think payment processing meets that standard, we could easily break them up and re-introduce competition into the market.

[bluefirebrand]

Having a payment processing industry with a lot of competing providers would be miserable

Imagine having to support every single type of provider for every transaction. I don't think it is a good idea at all

[danaris]

a) One way or another, that's "not letting them enjoy the same freedoms as other companies"

b) How would you then prevent them from re-amalgamating the way Verizon and AT&T did after the Baby Bell breakup? Not just for a few years afterward, but ever?

c) I think that payment processors actually make a pretty convincing natural monopoly: consider that if we had 400 payment processors with no common interface protocol between them (and let's face it, without being forced to, companies aren't going to make such a standard), your Baby Visa #27 credit card wouldn't be accepted at a merchant who only accepts Baby Mastercard #100-200 cards. And even accepting that many different payment processors would be pretty onerous.

Remember, this isn't the card issuers we're talking about; this is the backend processors. The only reason our current "universal" credit card infrastructure works is because nearly everyone takes Mastercard and Visa, and most credit cards—and many debit cards—are either Mastercard or Visa. Sure, it would be possible to create some kind of an interchange standard that all 400 processors would follow, but again, where's the incentive for any single processor?

[woodrowbarlow]

i'd add, they're also not private. i mean, i know a publy-traded company is "in the private sector", but it's still a collectively-owned resource and that's a lot different from compelling a privately-owned company.

[woodrowbarlow]

you are taking it for granted that corporations should largely be given the same civil rights as private citizens, as decided in citizens united v. FEC, but in my view this was one of the worst decisions to ever come out of the supreme court.

[coldpie]

Hmm, maybe, I haven't thought about it much. The angle I'm taking is, as a private citizen I choose not to do business with entities I think are immoral, such as Amazon and Home Depot and Hobby Lobby and Uline and Tesla. If I were a business owner, I would prefer to continue to not to do business with those entities and I'd be pretty pissed if I was forced to by the government. That does seem to agree with your "same rights as private citizens" framing, yes, though I'm not sure I'd go so far as to defend the CU decision. I dunno. Interesting question, I'd welcome your thoughts on this.

[woodrowbarlow]

if we are to limit the conversation to privately-owned companies, you and i are likely philosophically aligned -- because the business has a person as an owner, and that person has rights. but when a business is publicly-traded, and no longer has a person as a sole owner, i believe many of those rights (which never belonged to the business, and always to the person) should evaporate.

[vunderba]

Regulatory capture and regional monopolies aren't going anyway any time soon. Let's throw out another hypothetical.

How would you feel if the only broadband ISP in your area automatically blocked entire swaths of websites from you on the grounds that the ISP felt they were "immoral" (whatever that means)? And yes I know VPNs exist but that is missing the point.

Payment processors are "pipelines" in the same manner as ISPs should be. If the major ones (VISA/MC) block you from doing business, that's putting someone's entire livelihood at risk.

EDIT: For clarification, I agree that antitrust has never been weaker and that we do need better trust-busting. I just think that it is more realistic to focus on legislation around payment processors MC/VISA atm.

[charlieyu1]

The alternative is to allow private behavior to do the dirty jobs instead, which is even worse

[_DeadFred_]

This is how it's been done in the USA since 9/11. Data isn't subpoenaed (would getting into people's rights) it's just bought (no rights violation). Controls aren't from the government, they are 'implementing industry standards'. Want to silence someone? Deplatform them. Want to deny access? Flag them with an opaque trust score. No constitutional rights are violated.

[coldpie]

Indeed, breaking up the too-big companies nicely solves several of these issues. It's much harder to deplatform someone if there are a dozen viable social media/video/critical Internet infrastructure companies, instead of just one or two.

[FirmwareBurner]

>not passing new laws to compel private behavior.

I have IRL facepalmed reading this. This comment gave me the equivalent exposure to 10 hours on X/Twitter. Mate, the reason you now have clean air, safe to eat food and drinking water is BECAUSE OF government compelling private behavior.

With your logic we should have just waited for free market competition to kick in for Cocal-Cola and McDonalds to decide on their own to stop putting arsenic into our food or for Ford and GM to produce engines with lower emissions.

The reason we have government compelling private behavior is that corporate interests are more likely and more easily to collude to fuck over the consumer together for profit, than consumers can do the same in order to intact desired change on the free market.

[coldpie]

You are correct, I don't think not being able to purchase porn games rises to the same level of danger as unsafe food or climate change, to require the government to tell businesses how they may operate.

> With your logic we should have just waited for free market competition to kick in Cocal cola and McDonalds to deiced on their own to stop putting arsenic into our food.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. No one is dying here. I do think the government should step into this market and perform major intervention by breaking up the big two companies into many little ones who can compete. After that, some payment processors may choose to support these business models despite the hit to their stock price (or whatever Visa's dumb argument is for not allowing these games).

[FirmwareBurner]

>I don't think not being able to purchase porn games rises to the same level of danger as unsafe food or climate change

Holy cow, so many comments here and you still missed the point by a mile. The point isn't video games, the point is payment processors shouldn't be arbiters on what you buy. Because if they can stop you buying/selling video games, they can do the same for other stuff. Where does their right to censor you begin and end?

[notjoemama]

> I have IRL facepalmed reading this. This comment gave me the equivalent exposure to 10 hours on X/Twitter.

I don't know man, jumping into a conversation like this is a great way to get people to NOT listen. I agree with your following point and would add I find these matters more complicated. For example, you wouldn't be typing a comment on this site without the kind of corporate freedom that raised the standard of living for the entire planet resulting in a shared technological advancement. Seems this is always a trade off, how much freedom are you willing to give up for centralized fascist governmental control?

[FirmwareBurner]

>I don't know man, jumping into a conversation like this is a great way to get people to NOT listen.

Nobody said I was wrong though. You can disagree with the messenger, but you can't disagree with the message.

[Goronmon]

That gets pretty controversial.

Is this issue always controversial?

Is it controversial that companies aren't allowed to refuse service based on gender or race (in the US at least)?

[coldpie]

> Is it controversial that companies aren't allowed to refuse service based on gender or race (in the US at least)?

Those are legal categories known as "protected classes," and yeah, it was and is pretty controversial[1]. I think you'd have a hard time getting purchasers of porn games declared a protected class.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 ; further reading, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

[Goronmon]

Actually, it's not really controversial anymore [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

[cwillu]

Companies shouldn't have rights.

[willprice89]

If I'm the sole owner and only employee of a small business, should I have the right to choose my clients? If so, at what size/scale/level of market capture should I lose my rights?

[BomberFish]

Well there's a difference between a small business and the effective duopoly that is Visa/Mastercard.

[aqme28]

To some extent, no. In my opinion* you shouldn't get to say "I refuse to design websites for gay people."

*: Not always the same as Sam Alito's

[throw7]

That's not usually the problem (it can be for some). It's really when your art/"identity" is being used to promote something you don't believe in. That happens across the whole religious and political spectrum... e.g. musicians that don't want their art used in certain contexts.

About the OP, government is the right place where we "fight it out" and try to sloppily design a system to move forward as one; these seemingly activist campaigns to "jawbone" private companies is absolutely a sign that something needs to be done at the government side. However, there are very entitled, rich interests behind the banking system, so yeah, there isn't one easy solution i think.

[bfg_9k]

It's an interesting one - I've always thought that businesses should have no right to refuse business, and it kind of already exists, for example you can't refuse to serve a customer purely on the basis of their skin color.

Likewise, if a casino or betting company (ladbrokes, for example) have customers that win too often, I also think it should be illegal to stop them betting. Fundamentally if you're running a business that is an uneven coin toss (to your favour) and you have customers that are able to make money off you - that's your fault for having a bad business model.

So to answer your question, any size.

[endominus]

If you run a restaurant and a known dine-and-dasher walks in, can you not refuse to serve them?

If you're a consultant do you have no right to refuse a client? Even if you have other clients you'd rather work for, or that particular client is a bad fit for you, or any other reason?

If you run a transport company, and you think someone is trying to get you to move illegal goods, or goods that you have moral qualms about transporting (such as a vegan being asked to transport livestock for slaughter) do you have no right to refuse?

[bfg_9k]

Known dine-and-dasher - no, I think you should be forced to serve them. You don't know if they're going to dine and dash you, you're not the police or the courts, punishing a dine and dasher. Your job is to serve food to those who pay you. If you've got a problem, make them pay for food first?

Consultant - unless you've got a legitimate need to reject providing services to them, I tend to think the same, you should have to serve them if they're trying to pay you, or there's a legitimate business need to avoid that client.

Transport company - it's not your job to judge what's being moved. It's your job to move something from A to B. If you want to avoid moving livestock, don't go into the transport business. Should that same vegan be allowed to not teach kids in school because the kids they teach eat ham sandwiches? Should they be allowed to reject someone from banking services just because they own a fur coat?

[phatskat]

These all sound wild and like their impeding on all kinds of freedoms - you’re saying that a business should be compelled to serve or work with anyone that offers to pay them which is _wild_.

The issue comes down to when you refuse to work with someone because of an immutable property - race, gender, age, etc - denying someone from coming into your restaurant because they’ve ripped you off is completely fine and I can’t see why it shouldn’t be. This smacks of “freedom of speech” when people get mad that a private platform told them they couldn’t say mean things.

[joegibbs]

But say you're a concreter, you've worked with a client who's an absolute prick - doesn't do anything illegal exactly but he's a total stickler with your work, calls you all the time with stupid questions, tries to find problems everywhere to justify a discount (despite you having hypothetically done the job perfectly), pays as late as possible. Shouldn't you have the right to not take on another job for this guy?

[bfg_9k]

You're right - but in that instance the justification in my mind (and what you'd presumably argue if challenged legally) is that they're difficult to work with - which I'm okay with.

But not wanting to concrete that person's driveway because they're in the army, or because they're a politician or whatever else along those lines I think shouldn't be allowed.

[s1mplicissimus]

Okay, I will now say "they are difficult to work with" or "i don't have time" every time a client walks up that I don't want to serve. Infact, that's exactly what a lot of handymen say already to avoid the irritation associated with declining a job. I hope you see how your "ought" will be difficult to implement in practice

[AngryData]

Can't you price that into their bill, or require payment before services? That is what most construction companies already do, if you are a pain in the ass they charge you more and more until you either don't want it any more or they are satisfied that their pay is worth your trouble, and if payment is potentially questionable they make you pay beforehand.

[cwillu]

None of this has anything to do with companies having rights. You as a person can choose to not to business with another person.

[joegibbs]

But given that companies are made up of people, where does the line get drawn? If your concreting business has a couple of other guys working does it still count?

[cm2012]

This is completely unworkable in the real world

[rachofsunshine]

"Small" is doing a lot of work there.

Large entrenched companies have leverage small businesses do not, in the same way that a large moon orbits in a way a test particle of infinitesimal mass does not. We already recognize this with respect to monopoly law: you lose your right to do certain things to your competitors precisely when you're large enough that you could reasonably suppress them.

That is essentially what we are talking about here: a duopoly that is actively suppressing competition. My understanding is that the big-two payment processors don't just refuse to process certain payments, they also refuse to work with banks who work with payment processors who will. Assuming that I am correct in that understanding (I might not be, this is not my area of expertise), that would prevent (or at least hinders) someone from just saying "there is a market need here" and forming their own payment processor to fill that need. To me, that seems like a problem for the exact same reasons that monopolies are a problem, and regulating against monopolies is not particularly controversial.

[charlieyu1]

Plenty of laws around the world have exemptions for small businesses so it is a moot point

[shswkna]

Please elaborate?

[baggy_trough]

Companies are groups of people. Why should people have rights separately but not when they decide to work together in a group?

[PopAlongKid]

That makes sense only if they also have legal responsibilities to go along with their rights.

Take for example PG&E, the large gas/electric utility for the northern 2/3rds of California. PG&E is a convicted felon and was sentenced to five years probation, but they remain un-rehabilitated.[0] Under your theory, the "group" with the rights should have been jailed. Instead, a new layer of rights is created out of thin air for the corporation but no meaningful responsibility was ever assigned, unlike individuals.

[0]https://liberationnews.org/pges-rap-sheet-the-criminal-histo...

[baggy_trough]

PG&E is certainly a grotesque entity, no argument there. Of course, it's a government created and strictly regulated monopoly as well.

[tiahura]

Agreed. Trump should shut down the NYT, Bluesky, and any other media corporation that questions him.

[sunrunner]

> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service

Really? If this was any other small to medium business where there were potentially tens, hundreds or even thousands of viable alternate businesses that provide what could be deemed as an equivalent service I might agree, but a global payments duopoly is essentially public infrastructure and should not be able to discriminate based on protected characteristics or personal subjective moral compass.

[willprice89]

I agree with your assessment of the current situation. But I think the solution is to break up the duopoly, either by leveling the playing field or creating government-run alternatives, rather than force the duopoly to do certain things.

[brookst]

This is the “instead of providing school lunches, eliminate poverty” argument.

I am fully supportive of fostering competition. But until the market actualky changes, monopilies / duopolies should be regulated to prevent this abuse of power.

Rejecting a simple tactical solution in favor of a future systemic overhaul is classic perfect vs good.

[hx8]

Calling for the creation of a government run alternative isn't arguing against School Lunches. It's the exact opposite.

[charlieyu1]

There is still an alternative, plain paper cash, and is run by the government. Won't trust most governments these days to do it though

[busterarm]

Governments put up infinite hurdles to creating new payment processors. There actually used to be more of them before the industry consolidated. Also Discover just got bought and American Express is getting their ass kicked by the big two.

People have been trying and failing to create new payment processing companies since at least the 90s. The richest men in the world, even (Musk).

Governments prefer the current status quo.

[phyzix5761]

As public infrastructure shouldn't the public take on the burden of funding and operation risk? Or are we saying we should force others to do what we want with their money?

[bfg_9k]

I think you'll find that's already the case. MC/VISA would have an implicit underwriting by the US govt should they ever be in extreme strife. We've already seen this happen before, the UK govt bailed out RBS, largely because of things like being responsible for 1/3 of all transactions that happened in Europe at the time.

Various airlines were also bailed out over the COVID period. So I'd say that it already exists, except the public sees no benefit.

[phyzix5761]

I agree that governments shouldn't provide bailouts without receiving equity for that compensation. The idea that any company is too big to fail undermines the smaller competitors who are making better decisions and have a strategic advantage in surviving economic challenges.

[bfg_9k]

Absolutely. But on the flip side I can also recognise that frankly, governments are terrible at running things. I think a Singapore style model is best - a giant holding company like Temasek that is wholly government funded and owned, but companies owned by the holding company are still beholden to the free market forces, are the best way to go for things like payment processors, airlines, utilities, etc.

[phyzix5761]

As long as the public gets to benefit from the profits these companies make just like any other shareholder. It could be a nice solution to the deficit problem.

[sunrunner]

I guess I was using the phrase to broadly mean a service that's intended to be available for use by the general public and with the service itself providing a means to an end without 'public ownership' being part of that (in the same vein as 'public' transport). Not sure if there's a more appropriate term here.

[phyzix5761]

But, effectively, you want to tell other people what to do with their money without taking on any financial risk for those policies. The majority shareholders for Visa are retirement accounts and retail investors. Why does one segment of the public get to tell another segment of the public what to do with their money without putting any skin in the game?

[sunrunner]

> But, effectively, you want to tell other people what to do with their money without taking on any financial risk for those policies.

For this kind of service (again leaning on a classification as 'public infrastructure') I suppose my answer is yes.

> Why does one segment of the public get to tell another segment of the public what to do with their money without putting any skin in the game?

I'm suggesting that regulation prevents them from _disallowing_ access to payments services for things that are not explicitly illegal. In this case I don't see 'Telling X what to do' and 'Telling X that they're NOT allowed to refuse to provide service in these cases' as the same thing, even though they're both essentially 'Mandating that X operate in a certain way'. The difference here being that refusal of service, while still being a choice about how to run, is explicitly a blocking choice for others in certain situations, and not just a choice to, for example, create a new credit product for the market.

> Why does one segment of the public get to tell another segment of the public what to do with their money without putting any skin in the game?

Is this not also just Collective Shout themselves pressuring the payment processors into refusing transactions from a third party for content that they themselves deem inappropriate?

> The majority shareholders for Visa are retirement accounts and retail investors

Is Visa not refusing a legitimate transaction (non-fraudulent, no rollback or refund) going to hurt these investors when part of their investment income comes from usage fees? And if an investor that has concerns about _how_ their investment makes money is that not now a different issue?

Edit: Added last point about shareholders.

[rachofsunshine]

Because we know that not doing so leads to bad outcomes, and in some cases, to outright catastrophe.

A person who was not invested in subprime mortgages in 2006 had no skin in the game - yet the fact that others did invest in subprime mortgages created instabilities that threatened them. Virtually everyone agrees, in retrospect, that something should have been done then. But it wasn't, with precisely the justification you're articulating here. The problem is that that person did in fact have skin in the game, because the outcome had important ramifications for their life even if those ramifications were not in the form of direct financial losses.

Now, sure, your ability to buy furry porn is very different from sparking a global recession. But you're implicitly articulating a very strong claim here, that you cannot regulate economic activity to which you are not a party. That has a clear counterexample well within the memories of most people reading this thread.

------

I think we agree that private individuals should be able to purchase legal content from the people who produce it. Without action here, that will become either impossible or very difficult, to the point of having a major chilling effect. I think we also agree that businesses should generally have the right to conduct business as they see fit, both because it allows the exploration of new ideas and because market economics is a powerful force for increasing productivity.

To me, that says that there is a tension between two irreconcilable rights. On one side, we have the rights of businesses to act in their economic best interest (which is important!). On the other side, we have the rights of individuals to (actually and with reasonable effort) engage in lawful private microeconomic activity. And when you encounter such a tension, you need to consider:

- How important the rights are

- How much of one you get by sacrificing some of the other

In this case, I would consider the ability of individuals to conduct microeconomic activity more important than the ability of corporations to conduct what is effectively a PR campaign (since no one seems to be of the opinion that payment processors are actually taking a loss on people buying porn, they're just caving to political pressure). And I think the restriction of payment processors here is small compared to the potential restriction on private individuals. So to me, the trade-off has a clear winner.

If you disagree with this chain of reasoning, can you explain where?

[phyzix5761]

I'm not seeing where private citizens are prevented from engaging in lawful private microeconomic activity when a privately owned payment processor doesn't want to engage in certain transactions. The private citizen has the option to pay cash, bitcoin, trade goods or services, etc. Are these options as convenient in this day and age as tapping a credit card? No, but that doesn't mean everyone is entitled to convenience in every situation.

Also, how do you reconcile the fact that many US citizens, for religious or other reasons, can't in good conscience endorse certain economic exchanges? A government that is supposed to represent the needs of all citizens would fail if it engaged in facilitating transactions that some portion of its population found immoral or inappropriate. The public has no say in private, legal, transactions but public enforcement on private entities is a different story; akin to endorsement.

The best we can do is ensure that private citizens have the freedom to engage in legal transactions. But if we start forcing private entities to participate in every legal transaction, we risk setting a precedent that could backfire. Especially when a future administration decides to enforce or block transactions based on political or ideological grounds that conflict with our own values.

[anal_reactor]

> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service.

No. A company beyond certain size functions more akin to a government body providing public service, and should be treated as such. Imagine the only ISP in the area refusing to provide service because fuck you that's why. Or Microsoft banning you from using Windows ever again. Think about it for a second - if Apple made a policy "iPhones cannot be sold to black people" would you say that a private company has all the rights to refuse service?

[willprice89]

I think the market would punish Apple sufficiently enough for something like that and government intervention wouldn't be required...

What about a small, local ISP? Should they be able to refuse to provide service? At what size can/should the government step in a force companies to do things?

[TZubiri]

A small local ISP serving a small area would be a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

Usually it is agreed that sometimes the infra costs are high, so there cannot be two or more competitors, so they are granted a monopoly in exchange for fulfilling the duty to serve the community.

[anal_reactor]

> I think the market would punish Apple sufficiently enough for something like that and government intervention wouldn't be required...

Ah yes. The invisible magic hand of free market that solves all problems. Except it doesn't. See Uber expanding its service where for a small fee you can avoid dealing with people from undesirable social class. Not exactly the same thing, but still the idea of free market promoting immoral solutions rather than eliminating them.

> At what size can/should the government step in a force companies to do things?

At a size when the society starts depending on your service for daily functioning. When it becomes essential. For example in my country it's an issue that you can't have a business without a bank account but sometimes banks just... refuse to make an account for you and your company won't function.

[SirMaster]

> For example in my country it's an issue that you can't have a business without a bank account but sometimes banks just... refuse to make an account for you and your company won't function.

But is everyone entitled to have a business? Is that written in the country's laws somewhere that everyone must be allowed to have a business?

[Workaccount2]

>Ah yes. The invisible magic hand of free market that solves all problems. Except it doesn't. See Uber expanding its service where for a small fee you can avoid dealing with people from undesirable social class. Not exactly the same thing, but still the idea of free market promoting immoral solutions rather than eliminating them.

I think you are mistaking the market for the people. The market is a natural manifestation of what people want. If people want high social class drivers and are willing to pay for it...taking away the option is not going to make them not want those drivers.

This a myopia similar to the war on drugs. The government thought regulating the drug market (that is, total ban) would make people not want to do drugs. We all know how well that worked out.

The market is the messenger, don't shoot it.

[pixl97]

>The government thought regulating the drug market (that is, total ban) would make people not want to do drugs

Eh, that is what was sold to the mainstream idiot. The 'war on drugs' has almost always been a fight against immigrants and minorities. The free market doesn't solve racism against minorities.

[Workaccount2]

The prohibition then if that one is easier to grasp. Same deal. It didn't stop anyone from liking alcohol, and just swept it all under the rug.

[Hizonner]

> I think the market would punish Apple sufficiently enough for something like that and government intervention wouldn't be required...

There was a time when if you served "Negroes" at your soda fountain, you could expect the market to punish you. You'd lose your white customers, who had a lot more money to spend at soda fountains.

It took a whole lot to change over to a world where doing the opposite would lead to market "punishment", and it's not obvious that it wouldn't be damned easy to change back.

Get out of fantasyland and stop worshipping the market. It's not a benevolent god.