Debanking - the practice of banks closing accounts, or denying services, on the basis of political belief - seems set to become one of the major battlegrounds of the ‘culture war’.
This is an outstanding reflection on the problems of ‘debanking’, David! I only disagree on the necessity for ‘exceptions’: the idea that rights have exceptions is part of what has got us into this mess. If it is impossible to be a citizen without a bank (and we are approaching this threshold, if we have not already crossed it), the state needs to defend the right for banking access for all citizens. I can see no ground for exception that does not open the door for treachery and abuse.
Unlike other businesses, banks’ peculiar rights and intrinsically risky business model (taking deposits and lending out a multiple of that), rightfully mean they are required to have a banking licence. In addition the major UK banks appear to have a de facto guarantee as exemplified during the banking crisis care of the taxpayer. As such they are sui generis and shouldn’t be allowed to cancel or deny accounts arbitrarily which includes simply because they don’t agree with people’s legally held (whatever that means) opinions.
'Thinking of the subject as a war between two freedoms, association versus expression, gets us nowhere.' Agree – and not only because it turns into a shouting match power struggle.
This entire argument basically relies on corporate personhood – and in this context, the idea of banks having the same rights as natural persons to freedom of expression, association, etc. is pretty ludicrous. The idea of a giant corporation's 'right' to freedom of association being upheld at the expense of an individual's freedom of expression is perverse.
Additionally, as you say, access to banking in our society is an essential utility. Unlike having your electricity cut off for not paying the bill (not doing what you said you'd do as the account holder), being debanked removes your access to a vital utility for a reason that isn't part of your contract with the bank. Try not paying your overdraft fees because you don't like the tone of their letter, and see how far you get.
Also unlike your electricity bill, being debanked places a very real and punitive limit on your personal freedom. This is why obtaining a fixed address to open a bank account is a game-changer for people escaping homelessness. Without a little plastic card and a PIN number, you are not a member of society.
In the UK, the highest form of punishment for any crime is the deprivation of liberty. Prisoners are effectively removed from society; we even talk about those released as 're-integrating into society'. You cannot be subjected to this punishment without a fair trial. Or can you?
I'm a full on Libertarian these days (I thank the utter collapse of the Conservative Party over the last 20yrs+ for this). In a free society I support freedom of association. Where we are today is the influence of the Govt, either directly or indirectly through its institutions (particularlythe Civil Service, the BoE and the FCA), has promoted first CSR and then ESG in every major institution in the country, which results in, amongst other things, EDI nonsense. This is not democracy in action - it is the insidious and malign effect of Govts and a few major power brokers hungry for even more control. For me therefore in these situations freedom of expression trumps freedom of association. Were the Govt and other malign actors not behind the current public discourse, I'd favour freedom of association coming out on top. Other banks would be available or spring up to supply debanked customers. The market is so polluted by implicit and explicit regulation that it is barely free in any respect.
Finally, we're it not for the taxpayer Natwest would no longer exist. The person they debanked is much more in tune with the beliefs and wants of taxpayers than they are. They owe it to us to reflect those beliefs and wants in the way they conduct business.
Jul 31, 2023·edited Jul 31, 2023Liked by David McGrogan
David
Re Thinking Clearly about De-banking
Wouldn’t thinking clearly, actually try and resolve the ‘incompletely theorised argument’ about freedoms?
I don’t think there is much agreement – we are in a land of newspeak where slavery is now freedom, you are being too nice. It’s the inability to create a theorised argument on freedom which has let us drift into our current total mess. It’s not just this banking issue which is at stake, there are a whole bunch of other ones – it is just that this one has the most momentum and ‘its so obviously wrong’ although we are still not exactly sure how to argue why about it. Classic conservative liberals do not know how to stem the tide because they are no longer ‘in power’, because they have generally conceded the common ground of objectivity and logic and so are all at sea with post modern progressive subjectivism. But progressive subjectivism is in the end all about power, power to influence and power to obtain the majority vote.
Matthew Parris throwing back, its just freedom of association in a free market is similar to throwing up the objection “what do you mean, you don’t like free speech absolutism”, when in fact free speech absolutism is a Trojan horse which destroys the idea of the ‘Golden rule’ and/or reciprocity which is in fact the true arbiter of freedom.
The point is no freedom was ever absolute in this extremist sense, the addition of absolutism makes it mean what it never can be. Freedom by definition must imply the ‘Golden rule’ and/or reciprocity. It is by giving freedom to the other that we allow it for ourselves, but it is in asserting the balance of reciprocity that a clear balance is drawn between so called competing freedoms. It is this balance which is the basis of a complete theorised argument.
For a human being to be empowered to express freedoms (diversity), as the progressives love to emphasis and a motive I basically agree with, requires that certain basic human needs are met (equality). These basic needs might be termed ‘the basic means of living’ - not something to be expanded through mission creep by progressives wanting to force their ideology through the back door.
The question is then to distinguish between basic means of living, which is the platform enabling freedom of expression, and the subsequent diverse freedom of expression itself. Reciprocity would demand that any diverse freedom of expression which disables or adversely affects another’s ability/or platform of expression through undermining their basic means of living, is dis-respectful and not being reciprocal. So a number of misdemeanours clearly fall into this category :- direct violence including speech immediately provoking it, the disrespect of private property, inappropriate prejudice such as racism etc – but also the modern trend of cancel culture, the disrespect of the common meanings of a common language through endless new speech codes, and not having an equal opportunity to partake of the public common wealth and means of living - would also all direct contradictions of reciprocity. Given how central the banking system is to the modern basic means of living this would clearly fit as a ‘basic means of living’. I think you will find that all the ones which should fit, will.
The apparent difficulty with freedom of association is that it is a diverse or private freedom and not a basic equal and public one. Its mixing the different freedom types up which get you in a muddle; is it a basic public freedom or is it a diverse private one? Freedom of association is a diverse private one. By private I do not mean keep it to yourself, I just mean its private and so potentially subject to all sorts of private whims. But as I said such whims cannot go so far as to destroy another’s basic public rights. Public basic rights always trump private diverse one, but one of the key points is that the basic ones are fairly limited, and hence basic.
To enact such a situation and for a government to preserve and encourage freedom would take a certain amount of regulation, especially where the distinction between private and public or equal or diverse is less obvious.
So where banks are concerned – because their basic service is so tied up with essential modern living it would be assumed that they were publicly orientated, both to customers and employees alike – so no private belief whimsy allowed. However if they wanted to provide a private service they could register to do so. Given the basic public orientation the government might have to limit this to ensure there is also a full service.
On sports clubs I think these would generally be public, as there is not really any private belief aspects about it – but it could reflect public distinctions such as male or female only sports as male and female compete separately.
Where places of culture, belief religious or political are concerned it is clear that they are basically private. This would also include the provision of political and religious services of various kinds as well.
There would clearly be organisation in between i.e. Hotel services – are these a basic right which enables another’s freedom of expression or is it a luxury and so initially subject to a private assumption. To avoid confusion they could just have to publically declare their private or public preference.
It is the basic understanding of the reciprocity of the ‘Golden rule’ allied to a distinction between basic means of living right (public equality) and diverse freedom of expression rights (private and diverse) which forms the proper basis for resolving most of the so called conflict between different freedoms.
The difficulty is that post modernism does not allow such distinctions, so the progressives will have none of it. Their MO is might is right, but the idea of reciprocity will surely be a weak point for them for they have to agree to it. (They have already debunked the equivalent idea of the ‘golden rule’ with some ‘platinum alternative’)
Of course to enact such an idea would mean a complete overturning of the 2010 equalities act and the like, which is basically an act which encourages equaling up of certain minority characteristics and so in turn encourages the division into such groups to obtain the 'equaling up'. The 2010 act is not about reciprocity.
Aug 17, 2023·edited Aug 17, 2023Liked by David McGrogan
Underneath the ideological contest, there's a more mundane, yet profoundly consequential driver: the tightening grip of anti-money-laundering (AML) regulations and the intricate web of risk assessment.
The regulatory environment today, designed to curb illicit financial activities, inadvertently flags customers as liabilities rather than assets to banks. When a bank unwittingly services someone with questionable activities, the wrath of regulators can be severe. This fear of regulatory repercussions often outweighs any other possible "risk" which could be presented by a client.
Adding complexity to this, banks frequently outsource risk assessment to third-party entities. These companies, aiming to protect both themselves and their banking clients, often pad their evaluations with safety buffers. And who can blame them? If a client prospect were associated, even tangentially, with a figure like "Ussemo ben Ladyn", would not caution be the knee-jerk response?
As layers of risk-aversion accumulate, a convoluted system emerges where the inherent conservatism of one entity compounds with that of another. This cascade of caution becomes an unintended consequence of AML regulations, stigmatizing legitimate clients based on vague connections or misunderstood affiliations.
In this scenario, the banality of excessive care results in evil outcomes. We're trapped in a cycle where institutions, in trying to steer clear of perceived threats, amplify risk aversion to the detriment of those they serve.
This is an outstanding reflection on the problems of ‘debanking’, David! I only disagree on the necessity for ‘exceptions’: the idea that rights have exceptions is part of what has got us into this mess. If it is impossible to be a citizen without a bank (and we are approaching this threshold, if we have not already crossed it), the state needs to defend the right for banking access for all citizens. I can see no ground for exception that does not open the door for treachery and abuse.
Unlike other businesses, banks’ peculiar rights and intrinsically risky business model (taking deposits and lending out a multiple of that), rightfully mean they are required to have a banking licence. In addition the major UK banks appear to have a de facto guarantee as exemplified during the banking crisis care of the taxpayer. As such they are sui generis and shouldn’t be allowed to cancel or deny accounts arbitrarily which includes simply because they don’t agree with people’s legally held (whatever that means) opinions.
'Thinking of the subject as a war between two freedoms, association versus expression, gets us nowhere.' Agree – and not only because it turns into a shouting match power struggle.
This entire argument basically relies on corporate personhood – and in this context, the idea of banks having the same rights as natural persons to freedom of expression, association, etc. is pretty ludicrous. The idea of a giant corporation's 'right' to freedom of association being upheld at the expense of an individual's freedom of expression is perverse.
Additionally, as you say, access to banking in our society is an essential utility. Unlike having your electricity cut off for not paying the bill (not doing what you said you'd do as the account holder), being debanked removes your access to a vital utility for a reason that isn't part of your contract with the bank. Try not paying your overdraft fees because you don't like the tone of their letter, and see how far you get.
Also unlike your electricity bill, being debanked places a very real and punitive limit on your personal freedom. This is why obtaining a fixed address to open a bank account is a game-changer for people escaping homelessness. Without a little plastic card and a PIN number, you are not a member of society.
In the UK, the highest form of punishment for any crime is the deprivation of liberty. Prisoners are effectively removed from society; we even talk about those released as 're-integrating into society'. You cannot be subjected to this punishment without a fair trial. Or can you?
I'm a full on Libertarian these days (I thank the utter collapse of the Conservative Party over the last 20yrs+ for this). In a free society I support freedom of association. Where we are today is the influence of the Govt, either directly or indirectly through its institutions (particularlythe Civil Service, the BoE and the FCA), has promoted first CSR and then ESG in every major institution in the country, which results in, amongst other things, EDI nonsense. This is not democracy in action - it is the insidious and malign effect of Govts and a few major power brokers hungry for even more control. For me therefore in these situations freedom of expression trumps freedom of association. Were the Govt and other malign actors not behind the current public discourse, I'd favour freedom of association coming out on top. Other banks would be available or spring up to supply debanked customers. The market is so polluted by implicit and explicit regulation that it is barely free in any respect.
Finally, we're it not for the taxpayer Natwest would no longer exist. The person they debanked is much more in tune with the beliefs and wants of taxpayers than they are. They owe it to us to reflect those beliefs and wants in the way they conduct business.
David
Re Thinking Clearly about De-banking
Wouldn’t thinking clearly, actually try and resolve the ‘incompletely theorised argument’ about freedoms?
I don’t think there is much agreement – we are in a land of newspeak where slavery is now freedom, you are being too nice. It’s the inability to create a theorised argument on freedom which has let us drift into our current total mess. It’s not just this banking issue which is at stake, there are a whole bunch of other ones – it is just that this one has the most momentum and ‘its so obviously wrong’ although we are still not exactly sure how to argue why about it. Classic conservative liberals do not know how to stem the tide because they are no longer ‘in power’, because they have generally conceded the common ground of objectivity and logic and so are all at sea with post modern progressive subjectivism. But progressive subjectivism is in the end all about power, power to influence and power to obtain the majority vote.
Matthew Parris throwing back, its just freedom of association in a free market is similar to throwing up the objection “what do you mean, you don’t like free speech absolutism”, when in fact free speech absolutism is a Trojan horse which destroys the idea of the ‘Golden rule’ and/or reciprocity which is in fact the true arbiter of freedom.
The point is no freedom was ever absolute in this extremist sense, the addition of absolutism makes it mean what it never can be. Freedom by definition must imply the ‘Golden rule’ and/or reciprocity. It is by giving freedom to the other that we allow it for ourselves, but it is in asserting the balance of reciprocity that a clear balance is drawn between so called competing freedoms. It is this balance which is the basis of a complete theorised argument.
For a human being to be empowered to express freedoms (diversity), as the progressives love to emphasis and a motive I basically agree with, requires that certain basic human needs are met (equality). These basic needs might be termed ‘the basic means of living’ - not something to be expanded through mission creep by progressives wanting to force their ideology through the back door.
The question is then to distinguish between basic means of living, which is the platform enabling freedom of expression, and the subsequent diverse freedom of expression itself. Reciprocity would demand that any diverse freedom of expression which disables or adversely affects another’s ability/or platform of expression through undermining their basic means of living, is dis-respectful and not being reciprocal. So a number of misdemeanours clearly fall into this category :- direct violence including speech immediately provoking it, the disrespect of private property, inappropriate prejudice such as racism etc – but also the modern trend of cancel culture, the disrespect of the common meanings of a common language through endless new speech codes, and not having an equal opportunity to partake of the public common wealth and means of living - would also all direct contradictions of reciprocity. Given how central the banking system is to the modern basic means of living this would clearly fit as a ‘basic means of living’. I think you will find that all the ones which should fit, will.
The apparent difficulty with freedom of association is that it is a diverse or private freedom and not a basic equal and public one. Its mixing the different freedom types up which get you in a muddle; is it a basic public freedom or is it a diverse private one? Freedom of association is a diverse private one. By private I do not mean keep it to yourself, I just mean its private and so potentially subject to all sorts of private whims. But as I said such whims cannot go so far as to destroy another’s basic public rights. Public basic rights always trump private diverse one, but one of the key points is that the basic ones are fairly limited, and hence basic.
To enact such a situation and for a government to preserve and encourage freedom would take a certain amount of regulation, especially where the distinction between private and public or equal or diverse is less obvious.
So where banks are concerned – because their basic service is so tied up with essential modern living it would be assumed that they were publicly orientated, both to customers and employees alike – so no private belief whimsy allowed. However if they wanted to provide a private service they could register to do so. Given the basic public orientation the government might have to limit this to ensure there is also a full service.
On sports clubs I think these would generally be public, as there is not really any private belief aspects about it – but it could reflect public distinctions such as male or female only sports as male and female compete separately.
Where places of culture, belief religious or political are concerned it is clear that they are basically private. This would also include the provision of political and religious services of various kinds as well.
There would clearly be organisation in between i.e. Hotel services – are these a basic right which enables another’s freedom of expression or is it a luxury and so initially subject to a private assumption. To avoid confusion they could just have to publically declare their private or public preference.
It is the basic understanding of the reciprocity of the ‘Golden rule’ allied to a distinction between basic means of living right (public equality) and diverse freedom of expression rights (private and diverse) which forms the proper basis for resolving most of the so called conflict between different freedoms.
The difficulty is that post modernism does not allow such distinctions, so the progressives will have none of it. Their MO is might is right, but the idea of reciprocity will surely be a weak point for them for they have to agree to it. (They have already debunked the equivalent idea of the ‘golden rule’ with some ‘platinum alternative’)
Of course to enact such an idea would mean a complete overturning of the 2010 equalities act and the like, which is basically an act which encourages equaling up of certain minority characteristics and so in turn encourages the division into such groups to obtain the 'equaling up'. The 2010 act is not about reciprocity.
Underneath the ideological contest, there's a more mundane, yet profoundly consequential driver: the tightening grip of anti-money-laundering (AML) regulations and the intricate web of risk assessment.
The regulatory environment today, designed to curb illicit financial activities, inadvertently flags customers as liabilities rather than assets to banks. When a bank unwittingly services someone with questionable activities, the wrath of regulators can be severe. This fear of regulatory repercussions often outweighs any other possible "risk" which could be presented by a client.
Adding complexity to this, banks frequently outsource risk assessment to third-party entities. These companies, aiming to protect both themselves and their banking clients, often pad their evaluations with safety buffers. And who can blame them? If a client prospect were associated, even tangentially, with a figure like "Ussemo ben Ladyn", would not caution be the knee-jerk response?
As layers of risk-aversion accumulate, a convoluted system emerges where the inherent conservatism of one entity compounds with that of another. This cascade of caution becomes an unintended consequence of AML regulations, stigmatizing legitimate clients based on vague connections or misunderstood affiliations.
In this scenario, the banality of excessive care results in evil outcomes. We're trapped in a cycle where institutions, in trying to steer clear of perceived threats, amplify risk aversion to the detriment of those they serve.
The interesting question to me is the extent to which the risk aversion to which you are referring is itself ideological.