Philosophy

205 readers

1 users here now

Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.

Rules

Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you.
No Porn, Gore, or NSFW content. Instant Ban.
No Spamming, Trolling or Unsolicited Ads. Instant Ban.
Stay on topic in a community. Please reach out to an admin to create a new community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

If we are forced to patronize a bank, does that violate Art.20 of the UDHR? (links.hackliberty.org)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Question about #humanRights— Article 20 of the #UDHR¹ states:

“① Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

② No one may be compelled to belong to an association.”

How does that apply in the context of forced banking? If a government forces you to enter the marketplace and register for a bank account, does that qualify as being compelled to belong to an association?

¹UDHR: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

#askFedi

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

courts and governments of the world clearly don’t see it that way.

It would be nice if I could predict how a court would view it but I have about zero confidence in being able to make that prediction. Often when a case escalates through the court system there is a discussion over what law makers intended when they wrote something. That is what I’m after here. I don’t know if Article 20 ¶2 was written by the UN or drafted by an org that influences the UN. But the question is, how broad was the author’s intent? Were they just thinking about Jewish registries and the like, or essentially all cases where people might be forced to associate to each other? The wording is quite vague (though perhaps rightly so if broad interpretation is the intent).

I think international human rights laws like this are rarely ever enforced & mostly symbolic. Thus I don’t suppose there would be any kind of case law to give clarity on this.

I guess it probably depends on what the alternatives are. Is it possible to opt-out? What are the repercussions for failure to comply?

I wish I could discuss the details of the particular situation at hand but that would be unwise ATM. I will give some other examples though:

several countries in Western Europe have banned cash payments above a certain amount (I think roughly €1-5k, depending on the country and residency status). So an unbanked wage earner is essentially forced into a shit-pay scenario IF they are lucky.. I’m not sure the gov wouldn’t look at the whole contract value anyway (e.g. a year salary). Obviously a worker could collect payment on a daily basis and easily get below the limit, but the law likely exists to block cash wages & a court would laugh at such an attempt.
the city offers public services such as public parking. But the city has recently shut down over-the-counter service and forced everyone to use their website which does not accept cash payment.

Example 2 more closely resembles the situation at hand but the public service involved is much more critically essential than parking.